Federalism Works—Even in a Crisis

"Comedian talks to 'Past Self' about Covid-19"
screenshot from here

There’s a funny video about a woman early in the year talking to her future self four months later, getting some surprising news about what turns out to be important in 2020. Great fun! One of the things about this crisis combined with social media is the opportunity to enjoy the talents of individual Americans we’d probably never hear from otherwise. 

Along those lines, you might want to tune in to SGN—that is, Some Good News, a low-budget, homemade “news” program put together by John Krasinski. 

Good humor and looking for the positive are a good approach to a crisis. We’re not wired to thrive in negativity.

I would so much like to be past this pandemic, so we could turn our attention to other things—like we were doing last January, before all the changes revealed by the future (current) self of that video.

One of the purposes here at the Spherical Model is to educate about our Constitution. So let’s turn back to that today, while still using this current situation, and cover the concept of federalism.

Federalism

Federal: relating to a type of organization that is made by joining together separate organizations or states

State: a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; a nation

When the thirteen original colonies declared independence from England, they were a loosely joined group of separate states (i.e., nations), a confederation. The document joining them, the Articles of Confederation, was weak and imperfect. That’s why, a few years later, representatives from these separate but confederated states worked out a new Constitution, “in order to form a more perfect union.”[i]

They did not give up being their own sovereign states, but they united with the other states in a stronger union. It’s important to remember that it was states joining together, and not merely a few million unaffiliated individuals suddenly becoming a new single nation. The nature of America is that it is the United States (nations) of America.

Over time, with inadequate history and civics being taught, too many people think of the states as just provinces.

Province: any one of the large parts that some countries are divided into

America didn’t divide itself into provinces that it called states; states united together to form America. We’re all Americans, but we’re also citizens of our respective states. You might forget that in some states, but you don’t forget it here in Texas.

Federalism Applied to the Pandemic

Issues of federalism are coming up a lot here, in America, during this pandemic. Some of the posturing between governors and the president come from these questions : “Who pays?” And “Who bears the blame?” If a state can make the federal government assume responsibility, then costs come out of the federal budget rather than the state budget. And if a mistake is made—not enough protection of the people, or putting small business out of businesses by ordering them to close for a time—then the blame and responsibility for restitution get laid at the feet of the federal government, rather than the respective state governments.

But we’re set up to be a federal government—each level of government handling all it can, and the next level up handling only what it must. Ideally.

During a pandemic, the federal government should be expected to handle border issues—people coming in and out of the country—with more vigilance and care than during normal times. Shutting down air traffic from China in late January is an example, followed not long after with flights from European countries that were having severe outbreaks.

The federal government can also provide information from national resources, such as the CDC, which can be used by state and local authorities, combined with their local data sources, to determine actions. The federal government is stepping up to its line of authority by recommending shut-down procedures. It does not, however, tell all states what they must do. A state still has authority to follow those guidelines exactly or adjust according to its own situation and needs.

And states have varied widely. Wyoming—with a lot of natural social distancing, and very few cases—shouldn’t have the same rules placed on their people as NYC, where more cases have happened than anywhere in the US. More cases actually than most of the rest of the US combined. South Dakota has turned out to be a good experiment of more openness in a less densely populated state. Texas is huge, and a mix of rural and urban counties, so Governor Abbott is giving a lot of autonomy to local areas on when and how to open back up.

So federalism is a good thing. As opposed to top-down, one-size-fits-all arbitrary authoritarian rule.

Authoritarianism

An odd phenomenon has been happening. One of the complaints about Donald Trump, since before his election, was that he was authoritarian. I believed that myself. He often talks like an authoritarian. But his actions have been federalist. He didn’t shut down the country. He didn’t order the states to do exactly as the CDC recommended. He didn’t order them all to reopen. He left the authority with state and local jurisdictions.

And while he’s been doing that, those who claim to fear his authoritarianism have insisted that he has failed to protect America by not being authoritarian enough.

Earlier today, Andrew Klavan illustrated this in his podcast. He played a clip from an old 2004 Saturday Night Live skit, in with Donald Trump participated. This was during the time when Trump was allowing his name to be licensed to all kinds of products. In the skit, it’s to a thing called House of Wings. With dancing chickens (people in costumes) around him, he plays it straight. 

Trump's 2004 "House of Wings" skit on SNL
screenshot from here

Here’s Donald Trump's part of the script:

Am I saying I’m a chicken wing expert? No, but I can tell you this: the wing is hands down the best part of the chicken. Better than the head. Better than the torso. Better than the back. And at Donald Trump’s House of Wings you can get them with 5 different levels of hotness: regular, hot, 3-alarm, suicidal, and hell spawn. And, if you like celery, congratulations! It’s on the house.

He doesn’t take himself too seriously. And—this is the point Klavan makes—he deadpans it.

That tells you absolutely everything about what Donald Trump has been doing during these press briefings—specifically when he said, “I have absolute authority to open everything up.” 

And the governors all reacted: “What? This is unconstitutional. We have power! We’ll sue. We have power.” 

And so he said, “OK. It’s up to the governors.” 

“What? What do you mean?”

It was one of the great deeks (?) in human history. It was absolutely terrific, and I’m going to be talking about this today. Trump has preserved federalism during a crisis. He has done what I said he should do at the very beginning, which is that he has let this crisis go to waste.

New word for the day: deeks. I have no idea how to spell it, and I couldn’t find a definition. But from context, I imagine it means he ensnared them in his game. Or it was an amazing feat.

Also, "letting this crisis go to waste" is Yuge, and I thank Andrew Klavan for putting it that way.

Andrew Klavan, screenshot from his podcast

Later Klavan says,

He has essentially done something that conservatives should be cheering…. He has put the Democrats in the position of defending federalism. He has put the press in the position of calling for him to become a tyrant while he tells them about the Constitution. That is an amazing, amazing feat on his side.

And it should tell us something about him, first of all, that, not only has he got a good sense of humor and he’s been deadpanning the press and just letting them make fools of themselves. But also that he is committed to the country working the way the country is supposed to work.

I think my Congressman, Dan Crenshaw, gets it. He understands that the federal government is not the nanny protector, and certainly not God. He had an exchange with Bill Maher over the weekend—which almost never goes well for conservatives, because Maher has an agenda he plans to put out regardless of what is actually said. But Rep. Crenshaw did well.

Dan Crenshaw with Bill Maher
screenshot from here

Bill Maher said Trump didn’t act quickly enough, after one advisor, Peter Navarro, suggested things were more serious than others were saying. Dan Crenshaw points out, "Two days later he implemented a restrictive travel ban from China which he was widely criticized for. And, you know, that same day, on January 31st, Nancy Pelosi proposed the 'No Ban Act,' which would be congressional limitation on what President Trump is actually able to do with that travel restriction."

Maher countered that not all travel from China ceased. Dan answered that American citizens and other passport holders were allowed to return (under quarantine for 14 days) to the United States.

And I loved this:

If you're saying you wish that travel restriction had been more extreme, okay, fine. You apparently had the foresight back then when apparently no one else did. But the fact is that if Joe Biden was in charge at that moment, he's already said he wouldn't have done it.... Nancy Pelosi actually proposed legislation to stop it.

Local Decisions Can Be Different

We were only able to act on information we had at the time. Now we have new information. Lately the information shows a couple of things: the disease is more contagious than we had supposed, which means more people have contracted it that previously thought. Simultaneously, new data shows an even higher percentage who are asymptomatic or mild enough that they didn’t notice they had it. Most testing has been done on those with severe enough symptoms to need medical assistance. That means the data have yet to show us the percentage of deaths among those who contract the disease—what we need to know for the best decisions.

The coronavirus still appears more likely to cause death than a typical flu. However, it’s a lot less likely than originally thought—back when the economy was shut down because of the danger.

The social distancing we’ve been doing was never designed to eradicate the illness; it was designed to spread out the spread, to avoid overwhelming resources. We’ve accomplished that. Yay! We’ve done it!

So, what is the rationale for continuing to keep all “non-essential” businesses shuttered? Or why prevent people from practicing sensible social distancing and hygiene as they go out? Why—as Michigan’s governor has ordered—prevent people from driving from their primary home to their second home within the state, typically a more rural cabin, which they own and haven’t touched since their last visit, and in which they can continue social distancing? Or why prevent people from driving in a car with another family member—whom they’ve been isolated with already for a month? Is there some way the disease spreads from inside one car to inside another car? Or from one person who clearly doesn’t have it to another person who clearly doesn’t have it?

We need common sense. Leaders at every level ought to be able to support their plans with data that applies to their situation. But if a leader doesn’t use data or common sense, at least they can only affect those within their jurisdiction, not all of us.

Because we’re a diverse country—urban, suburban, rural—we need local decisions. And they shouldn’t the same in a dense city with a lot of mass transit as in a rural area where people travel by car and are easily able to maintain distance even in public.

Federalism is ideal for a country like ours. Let decisions be local. And let them be different one from another.

---

[i] Preamble to the US Constitution.

Tyranny's Body Count Rises

Sometimes we talk about the overwhelming body count caused by communist regimes in the 20^th Century. But we’re two decades into the next century, and those numbers continue to add up.

We need to add every death from the SARS-COV-2, the COVID-19, also called the novel coronavirus, to the body count for the Chinese Communist Party.

Is it important to determine blame?

Think of it this way, using a simple society: your tribe is at war with a nearby tribe. You would rather not be at war; you are not the aggressor. But every night for a week, homes on the outskirts of your village have been attacked. The people within each home have been murdered. The signs of forced entry and violence are obvious. The aggressor tribe you’re at war with has threatened to do this violence. You set out scouts to watch the village perimeter. They report that intruders who appear to be dressed as your enemy tribesmen sneak in and out. In the morning additional households have been murdered.

Do you say, “Let’s not be hasty. We could have serial murderers among us. We don’t want to falsely blame our enemies and set in motion a need for action”? And then do you spend your time trying to find evidence of an internal serial murderer? Or do you start building a protective wall around the outer settlements—or some other protection against your enemy?

It’s helpful to know what’s actually happening so you can take the most appropriate actions to protect yourselves in the future.

In this case, the warring tribe against us is the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It has declared war against us, the US in particular, the West in general, the rest of the world in all practical purposes.

Screenshot from "Tracking Down the Origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus"

The Crimes of China

China’s claim that the virus was a spontaneous mutation from wild animals—bats—that found its way into the population through a seafood market is now known to be a lie. It turns out, no one bought or sold bats at the Huanan Seafood Market. The bats that carry the coronavirus are specifically horseshoe bats, located in caves 900 km from the market—but captured and brought to the Wuhan Virology Lab where they were studied, just up the road from that market.

The logical assumption is—and the evidence shows—that this was a virus that was manufactured in a lab. The virus in nature does not transfer to humans. But a scientist at this lab, Shi Zhengli, had published as far back as 2010 on the methodology for getting these coronaviruses to infect humans. It was a matter of a lock and key. She replaced the key, the S-protein, in the SARS virus with one found in a bat coronavirus, and had plans to next experiment on primates. This woman has disappeared, but China says, “No, she’s fine,” but won’t show her, or even a new photo of her.

Shi Zhengli, speaking on cross-species infection in 2018
screenshot from here

At this point we don’t know the purpose of this research. It looks like creating a bioweapon is a possibility. But some funding for the research came from the US, which is puzzling if that was the only purpose.

We don’t yet have evidence that the outbreak was on purpose. It seems logical that they might have wanted to develop a vaccine first (which they would control distribution of), or they might have wanted to develop genetic engineering that would avoid affecting their own people. So, at this point I think it was an accidental leak.

But once it was out, the source was almost immediately known, as well as the virus’s ability to move person-to-person, and not just animal-to-human. They had the entire genome sequenced—which they provided to the world in February, months earlier than they would have been able to do in so short a time if this work had not already been essentially complete.

The CCP shut down any information about the virus. They destroyed evidence at the seafood market. They waited a full six weeks—and probably even weeks longer than that, to tell the world it was highly contagious—risking their own people by not closing down travel, and not taking containment measures, until mid-January, a full two months into the spread. Mid-January, before admitting human-to-human spread, they cut off Wuhan from the rest of China, but they did not cut off Wuhan from the rest of the world. 

A University of Southampton study found that the spread of Covid-19 could have been reduced by about 95% if China had been honest just three weeks earlier.

In February, when it was obvious they had long known about the contagion, they started claiming it was a bio-weapon placed in China by the Americans.

The WHO took China's word without question every step of the way. That is unconscionable.

As of today, 2,152,647 people worldwide have been confirmed to have contracted the virus (depending on testing, so that actual number is likely higher). The US has 667,801 cases.  Worldwide deaths are at 143,802. Every single one of these cases is to be laid at the feet of the CCP.

Sources

treating CCP virus patient in Wuhan, March 19
image from here

I expect you not to take my word for it. I am no expert. I just read and listen and try to piece things together. Here are some recommended sources to get you started:

The Epoch Times put out a special edition related to the virus for March/April 2020, which is full of information. Because the Chinese Communist Party has been at fault in endangering the world, they have made the editorial decision to consistently call it the CCP virus. This is a subscription paper, but some articles may be available online singly. I suggest “The Mysterious Origin of the CCP Virus”  and “How China’s Coverup Led to a Global Pandemic.” 

Also provided by The Epoch Times is a documentary on YouTube called “Tracking Down the Origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus,” posted April 7, 2020. Narrating the documentary is investigative reporter Joshua Phillip, who has spent over a decade writing about China’s espionage and unconventional warfare. The 54-minute documentary covers the origins, the forensic case, and the biology in a clear and reasonable way, providing documentation along the way. 

Another good source is a YouTube presentation by philosopher Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain, called “The Case Against China.” This 64-minute presentation lays out the case as you might a murder case. Our “murderer” (the CCP) waited 6 weeks to notify the “police”—the WHO. He lies (saying there is no human transmission). He refuses to allow the “police” (WHO) to question him. When the police bring a search warrant, they find he has destroyed evidence and records (at the Huanan Seafood Market). He attempted to collect “life insurance”—China steals a US patent that was given for free to attempt to treat the virus. He threatens anyone who knows anything—Chinese doctors disappear. He is found with the evidence—the bat studies in the virology lab. He previously declared that he hates his victim and plans to murder—China declared a “people’s war” against the United States in May 2019. The cause of death is found to be as expected—the bat virus being studied in the lab at the epicenter of the infection. How should the jury find the accused? Guilty.

Stefan Molyneux, presenting "The Case Against China"
screenshot from here

On his Friday night special three weeks ago, Glenn Beck went through the case, which he called “China Lied.” This is behind a paywall, but it’s worth it. Add to this his Wednesday night special a week ago, called “Arguing with (Chinese) Socialists,”  a smaller piece of which is available on Youtube. 

Screenshot from Glenn Beck, "Arguing with Chinese Socialists"

I’ve been following Bill Whittle’s daily updates on his video podcast The CoronaSphere Lounge. Episode 21 was titled, “Is theCoronavirus Man-Made?” It was in this one that he recommended “Tracking Down the Origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus.” A few days later, on episode 24, he recommended “The Case Against China.” Most of the time Whittle's daily updates have been optimistic about our coming out of this soon, and rebounding. Anyway, he lays out the information well himself, drawing from other sources.

Outcomes

This CCP-caused pandemic happened while China had a treaty to behave as other civilized nations do.  In Britain, legislators pointed out, “Legally binding international healthcare regulations require states to provide full information on all potential pandemics. It appears likely that in its early response to the outbreak, [China failed to] uphold its obligations.”

So, what can be done to hold them accountable? Every country should pursue the Chinese government through international courts for the billions or trillions of dollars in coronavirus compensation. The G7 should hold China accountable for the trillions in economic impact that would have been avoided if the CCP had been honest about the outbreak immediately.

One lawsuit, by Texas lawyer Larry Klayman, was filed for $20 trillion against the Chinese government—a higher amount than China’s GDP. In the suit he must defend the allegations about it being China’s fault. He believes he can.

What courts can be used? The International Court of Justice, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the Hong Kong courts, resolution of disputes through bilateral investment treaties, or the World Trade Organization.

Another likely way is more organic. Without any orders from above, people will refuse to buy products from China. The money that companies used to save by using cheaper labor in China will no longer be a savings if it causes them to lose buyers of their products.

Let’s be clear about one thing: the Chinese regime is led by Chinese President Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese people did not perpetrate this crime.

Screenshot from Glenn Beck's "China Lied"

We know from our long dealings with Hong Kong and Taiwan—as well as the many many Chinese who have become Americans—that the Chinese people are worth supporting. After so many decades under this murderous tyranny, a best outcome would be that holding the CCP accountable for this pandemic—both in lives lost and in economic costs—might lead to the overthrow of the regime.

The CCP can no longer play on the world stage among civilized nations. They have lost that right. But their people have, over the past couple of decades, seen some small sample of what freedom brings to the rest of the world. Perhaps they will no longer stand for this tyranny when it removes them from the trade that has boosted their standard of living so significantly. It would be sweet justice if this led to freedom for the Chinese people—and freedom from the CCP for the whole world.

Unrighteous Dominion

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.—Doctrine and Covenants 121:39

Why do we limit government’s powers? Because governments are made up of individual humans, some good, some not so good. None perfect. Many are petty tyrants. So we limit government. We must.

But what about when there’s an emergency? Like now?

Governments have ordered people to stay home as much as possible. Lose their livelihood for the time being. Lose businesses, some of them permanently. Lose many of our basic freedoms. But we have been going along with the restrictions—for now. Assuming there is a greater good we are doing it for. And assuming it is temporary, and damages might be mitigated later.

But, as petty tyrants do, they step further than necessary. And they have to be swatted back.

A good swat happened this past weekend, in Kentucky. 

On Thursday, Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer ordered a prohibition on churches—but particularly on a single local church that had made plans—to have drive-up services, including for Easter.

The church, On Fire, pushed back. And quickly, District Court Judge Justin R. Walker issued a temporary restraining order, Saturday afternoon—before the prohibition could take effect on Easter Sunday.

On Fire Christian Church, Louisville, Kentucky
image from On Fire Facebook page, found here

I’ve been binge-watching the Viva Frei Vlawg—a law-related video blog, with Canadian lawyer David Frei, for some months now, since impeachment. Even though he’s in Canada, he often covers American issues, and is a serious student of our Constitution. My son Political Sphere told me Frei had posted yesterday morning, out in his car, with his wife texting him to get back in the house, because he just had to share this ruling—about the Kentucky case. 

So I went and looked for it. Of this ruling Frei says, “Some judgments, however long or short, are just tedious to read, while other judgments are just things of beauty.” And he's right; this is a thing of beauty in written thought.

Frei says he’s often asked about the constitutionality of these restrictions during the pandemic. He says, “The questions is not, ‘Are these measures unconstitutional?’ The question is whether the unconstitutionality of these measures can be justified by the circumstances.” The measures must be “proportionate to the urgency of the situation.”

So he goes through the TRO (temporary restraining order) written by Judge Walker. 

Here’s the introductory paragraph of the opinion:

On Holy Thursday, an American mayor criminalized the communal celebration of Easter.

That sentence is one that this Court never expected to see outside the pages of a dystopian novel, or perhaps the pages of The Onion. But two days ago, citing the need for social distancing during the current pandemic, Louisville’s Mayor Greg Fischer ordered Christians not to attend Easter services, even if they remained in their cars to worship—and even though it’s Easter.

The Mayor’s decision is stunning.

And it is, “beyond all reason,”[i] unconstitutional.

Introductory paragraph of the opinion
from here

The judge said the Church would suffer irreparable harm, because missing Easter services is not something that can be made up to them. Saying, “Oh well, you can try again next Easter” won’t do.

And he said the government would be substantially burdening the believers, preventing them from practicing their religion on one of the most important religious holidays.

He said the temporary restraining order was necessary because of the urgency of the timing. A hearing is to happen on Tuesday, April 14. (In the TRO, he suggests how to get the contact information for the virtual hearing—which includes allowing the public to listen in.[ii]) Waiting until the hearing would mean the irreparable harm—of missing Easter—would be done. So this was urgent.

Further, he did not require the plaintiff, On Fire Christian Center, to put up security; that is, a possible payment amount set aside in case they lose. The judge said there would be no damage done to the city of Louisville if On Fire were to lose; its right to prohibit public gatherings to prevent the spread of the virus would be intact. He also waived notice of judgment because of the timing and urgency—but he was likely pretty sure the Mayor got the message in time to rescind the order to have police at the church taking license plate numbers.

In his reasoning Judge Walker spends some time introducing the history of Easter, to explain why it is seen as important to a Christian. And he also makes some comparisons that show the Mayor and Louisville what category he puts them in:

Of course, pockets of society have not always lived up to our nation’s ideals. Slaveowners flogged slaves for attending prayer meetings.[iii] Murderous mobs drove the Latter-day Saints into Utah.[iv] Bigotry toward Roman Catholics motivated a majority of states to enact Blaine Amendments.[v] Harvard University created a quota system to admit fewer Jewish students.[vi]

And now we have Louisville’s mayor preventing the celebration of Easter.

Frei tells us there are four criteria for a TRO:

1.       Plaintiff (On Fire) has strong likelihood of success on the merits.

2.       Plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury without a TRO.

3.       The “balance of the equities” tips in Plaintiff’s favor.

4.       Injunction is in the public interest.

On Fire satisfies all four requirements for a TRO. And the judge lays out why for each one.

What was Mayor’s Fischer’s side? What was his justification for the prohibition? He claimed it wasn’t “practical to accommodate drive-up services in our community.” But he does not prohibit drive-through restaurants or liquor stores. He claimed what the church was planning was “clearly a very, very unsafe practice.”

But on what basis? The cars were going to be parked six feet apart. People were going to remain in their cars, with windows no more than halfway down throughout the service. The only people out of cars would be the pastor and the videographer, who would be well separated from the cars (and presumably from each other). The church had every intention of abiding by CDC guidelines for social distancing.

Why would it be unsafe to be in a car away from others in a church parking lot, but not at a drive-thru restaurant or a liquor store? Or any other type of parking lot, for that matter?

It’s true that the mayor could fulfill his own religious convictions from home on Easter Sunday; many people would. (We did.) But that doesn’t mean it has to be true for everyone. People believe differently. The judge says, quite beautifully,

It is true that On Fire’s church members could believe in everything Easter teaches them from their homes on Sunday. So too could the Pilgrims before they left Europe. But the Pilgrims demanded more than that. And so too does the Free Exercise Clause. It “guarantees the free exercise of religion, not just the right to inward belief.”[vii] That promise is as important for the minister as for those ministered to, as vital to the shepherd as to the sheep. And it is as necessary now as when the Mayflower met Plymouth Rock.

The mayor’s threats actually violate both the First Amendment and Kentucky law. Still, government is not always and necessarily in the wrong. Judge Walker concedes that, in an emergency such as an epidemic, a state may implement emergency measures that curtail constitutional rights. But these measures must be:

·         Proportionate.

·         Justified.

·         Necessary.

·         Effective.

Frei explains that even very minimal measures would not be justified if they didn’t relate to the public health crisis—or whatever the crisis might be, or if they were ineffective in addressing it. And the most massive, sweeping, draconian measures could be effective—"such as making everyone stay at home in their bathroom,” he suggests—but those measures would be too overly burdensome to be justified.

Viva Frei Vlawg: "Louisville Mayor Tried to Cancel Easter"
screenshot from here

So there must be a balance. The Judge recognizes that Louisville shows a compelling interest—the public health, saving lives. But government must show it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal.

The measures are both underinclusive and overbroad. Louisville does not narrowly tailor the measures to avoid unduly burdening the right of Freedom of Religion in this case. Nor does it include other similar non-religious circumstances. Together, this looks pretty clearly like infringement of religious rights specifically.

After laying out all the legal views, here is the Judge’s final paragraph:

But for the men and women of On Fire, Christ’s sacrifice isn’t about the logic of this world. Nor is their Easter celebration. The reason they will be there for each other and their Lord is the reason they believe He was and is there for us. For them, for all believers, “it isn’t a matter of reason; finally, it’s a matter of love.”[viii]

Judge Walker is a recent Trump appointee, only 38 years old. We’re going to need judges who can both see the legal issues, but be sensitive to the philosophy underlying what our founders put in place.

Frei ends with this:

Health emergencies, even if they are most legitimate emergencies, do not give the government carte blanche to take all one fundamental rights and liberties. Even in the context of health emergencies, violations to one’s fundamental rights and liberties have to be justified; they have to be proportionate; and they have to be reasonable. They have to be properly and narrowly crafted in order to achieve the desired result without unduly infringing on rights and freedoms.

And if we don’t have judges like Judge Walker holding the government to task, it is not long before we have no rights at all.

My own Church has been very well set up for worship from home, and for now I’m comfortable with that—trusting that it’s only for this special time.

There have been other churches who have looked at the social distancing guidelines and tried to find ways to abide by those within their buildings. They offer hand sanitizer. They seat people with each family separated from others by at least six feet. They’re trying to find a balance. It doesn’t look different from social distancing at a grocery store. So, whoever is telling them they can’t ought to be proving it’s somehow less safe than in the grocery story. I think there’s likelihood in-person is more dangerous than drive-thru, but it may not be more dangerous than other working conditions that are allowed.

I heard of a place deciding that people shouldn’t be allowed to shop for non-necessities when they do go out to shop. No clothing, for example. Only food. But who is to say that the family with a growing toddler doesn’t absolutely need more clothing—which they can see the size and feel of in person, and which they may not have the resources to buy with shipping costs online?

And then there was the closing of parks—for fear people would use them inappropriately, not because they had been misused and causing danger. So this means that people who have no other outdoor choice (and outdoors is supposed to be good for us, and safe) can’t go to the park for a walk or run.

Police in Colorado arrested a dad who was playing catch with his young daughter—away from everyone but their nuclear family. The ones who violated the social distancing were the police. They had to release him almost immediately, with an apology—and investigation coming. What violation did they even think they saw?

A friend of mine was walking with her husband and son—away from all others. A car drove by and yelled at them to get home and stay away from people. Why? Wouldn’t you assume a family walking together also lives in the same house together?

Petty tyrants pop up in times like this, when our usual freedoms are suspended. We’ll need to reassert our rights as soon as we can, and repeatedly. We can thank judges like Judge Walker. But we also need to do more than trust the courts.

If we want our world back, as we begin to open back up, we will need to do whatever we can that is safe enough, and insist on our rights to do those things.

Frei ended with this quote on the screen:

“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.”—Abraham Lincoln

---

[i] The “beyond all reason” quote is from Cf. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 31 (1905).

[ii] Point 8 in the TRO reads: “The Court GRANTS On Fire’s request for Oral Argument. The Court will hold a

telephonic hearing on the preliminary injunction motion on April 14, 2020 at 11:00 A.M. Counsel

shall email Ms. Megan Jackson at Megan_Jackson@kywd.uscourts.gov for the hearing’s call-in

number and access code. Members of the public interested in listening to the hearing may also

email Ms. Jackson.”

[iii] Footnote in the TRO: Albert J. Raboteau, The Secret Religion of the Slaves: They often risked floggings to worship

God, CHRISTIANITY TODAY https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-33/secretreligion-of-slaves.html (last accessed Apr. 11, 2020).

[iv] Footnote in the TRO: See Mormon Pioneers, PIONEERS, https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/mormon/history/pioneers_1.shtml. (last accessed Apr. 11, 2020).

[v] Footnote in the TRO: See Jane G. Rainey, Blaine Amendments, THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA,

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1036/blaine-amendments (last accessed Apr. 11,2020).

[vi] Anti-Semitism in the U.S.: Harvard’s Jewish Problem, JEWISH VIRTUAL LIBRARY, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/harvard-s-jewish-problem (last accessed Apr. 11, 2020).

[vii] Judge Walker refers to Trinity Lutheran, 137 S.Ct. at 2026 (Gorsuch, J., concurring).

[viii] In this last phrase, Judge Walker is quoting from Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons 141.

Worldwide Unity

It’s Easter Season. For Jews, that’s Passover week. For Christians, the whole week leads up to the resurrection of Christ, Easter Sunday.

Meanwhile, the world is plagued.

We don’t like being plagued. But we try to find the good in it. And there are some good things. A friend celebrating Passover suggested that, if God wanted all the families of the earth to be at home together for Passover, well, this is a way. For Easter, because we’re empty nesters, we will miss gathering with our children and grandchildren. I don’t think we’ve had that happen before. But for families with children, this Easter is likely to be more memorable, more focused, than any other in their growing up years.

A lot less candy. A lot more family togetherness. A lot more prayer.

found on Worldwide Fast April 10 Facebook page

This past weekend was our worldwide General Conference, which we could tune into online, fortunately. For those of us far away from Utah, that’s how we always do it. The odd thing was that, even in Utah everyone had to do it by tuning in. The Tabernacle Choir still provided music—but all was from previous recordings, since they can’t get together right now. The speakers for each session (there are 5 sessions over two days) met in a room, spaced from one another, instead of in the Conference Center with 25,000 of their closest friends and neighbors.

During that conference, our President, Russell M. Nelson, asked us to join together in a worldwide fast, this Friday, Good Friday, April 10. He asked us to pray for relief from the virus, protection for the caregivers, relief for the economy, and a return to our normal lives. He asked us to share this so it will be not just a fast for Latter-day Saints, but for everyone.

That has been happening. Someone started a public Facebook group, Worldwide Fast April 10, to share, and to encourage.

Worldwide Fast April 10 Facebook group header

They put together a map of where participants are from. It is truly worldwide.

Map set up to identify locations of members of Worldwide Fast April 10

People of different faiths have asked if they’re welcome, and they receive a resounding yes.

collection from Worldwide Fast April 10, found here

Early on there was a meme comparing this to the Fellowship of the Ring, with everyone offering their part.

Found on Worldwide Fast April 10 Facebook page

Earlier today I saw this one, also humorously using fictional comparisons.

found on Worldwide Fast April 10 Facebook page

May people have shared their stories. So many have shared their concerns that, because they haven’t been faithful for a long time, they might not be worthy to join. They’re welcomed. What if they’re gay? They’re welcome. What if they haven’t prayed in years? Join us in prayer. What if they’ve never fasted before? Good time to give it a try.

So, a word about the pattern of fasting and prayer.

Walter Rane painting "Master, I Have Brought
My Son Unto Thee"
recounted in Mark 9

There’s a moment in Christ’s life, recounted in Mark 9, when he had been healing people. His disciples came to him privately afterward, asking why they had been unsuccessful in healing the young man Jesus had just healed. He answered, “This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.” Sometimes a simple prayer is not enough for a more serious problem. Sometimes you need to add fasting to prayer.

In our Church, we have a monthly fast day. The traditional pattern is to eat dinner one evening, and then don’t eat or drink again until dinner the following day, so 24 hours later. The money for the two missed meals is given as an offering to the poor. (This fast offering is over and above tithing.)

We usually do this on a Sunday, during which we go about our regular Sunday practices. We don’t appear to fast—although grumbling stomachs can be heard. And we often use this day to share our testimonies, our experiences with Christ in our lives. We pray throughout, preferably with a particular purpose that we pray for. We end the fast with a prayer. Then we eat.

That is the standard. But there can be variations. It can go longer. Or shorter, depending on your abilities and strength. Small children don’t typically fast. Older children might start by missing just one meal. People who need to take medicine can drink water and do that. People who need to take medicine with food might need to eat.

The going without food does something to help us recognize our physical limitations and dependency on God. But people with health issues—nursing mothers, diabetics, etc.—can work toward that focus in their prayers another way. If they cannot, or should not, go without food and drink for a full 24 hours, they can sacrifice something else, or simply consecrate the day and their prayers, and ask the Lord to accept their offering.

In other words, it’s about a lot more than getting really hungry.

When we look at times in scriptures when there were plagues, such as famines or pestilence, relief would come once the people turned back to God.

found on Worldwide Fast April 10
Facebook page

I don’t think this means God inflicts his people with these things. I think we live in a fallen world where these things are part of what we face. But we can face and overcome the world when we are connected to God. When we don’t connect to Him, He doesn’t reach out His protective hand indefinitely.

What can we expect from this special day of fasting and prayer? We can expect a turning of our hearts to God, which is always a good thing. And if we are sincere and united, I believe He will hear our prayers and grant us relief.

I don’t know what that will look like. I do believe it will mean something miraculous—something that those of us who join together in this fast will recognize as miraculous. Those who do not pray with us might be able to call it just science or nature, but those of us who prayed will know more.

I don’t know timing. I don’t know what things will look like. But I do believe if we pray for those four things, we will look back at this day in the not too distant future and see—this was when things began to change. This was the turning point.

And possibly we will remember the way we felt, united together in our turning to God. We will feel love toward one another. And that will be a very good thing as we face whatever the next challenge to the world might be. We might even feel closer together in this time of isolation than we have felt for a very long time.

Come and join us in this Worldwide Fast, April 10, 2020. 

And then enjoy a beautiful Easter morning, celebrating The One who overcame death, and overcame this fallen world.

lyrics to the hymn "In Fasting We Approach Thee"
graphic found on Worldwide Fast April 10 Facebook page