Coronavirus Communication: Interaction of Church, State, and Constitution in the Pandemic Environment

Valeriia Manchak

MA Public Policy

Dr. Kahlib Fischer

This paper is written by Valeriia Manchak, graduate student, public policy major. Undergraduate and master's degree received back in Ukraine through National Law University in legal studies/law concentration. Playing hockey for D1 Women's hockey team. Career plans - working for the INGOs such as United Nation or European Union with a concentration Ukraine- USA-Russia Relationship. Next year planning to pursue PhD online at Liberty University in foreign policy and MA in Strategic Communication, keep playing college hockey for two more years.

Introduction

This paper investigates the response to Covid-19 by examining the communication problem between the government and religious institutions. During the outbreak, some faith- based organizations used religion-abetted value judgments which affected viral spread (Whitehead and Perry 2020). Religious institutions can also inspire people to be supportive while the world endures hard times. (Wildman, Bulbulia and et al. 2020). This paper will explain where churches have contributed to the challenges of dealing with the COVID virus and provide recommendations for the better response (Wildman, Bulbulia and et al. 2020). This paper also discusses where the government violated constitutional rights and how to fix these issues in the future. This research encourages government institutions to look at medical data presented in the article about impact that Covid-19 had on Americans' mental health and consider the medical ramifications of reopening churches to help hospitals fight depression and anxiety.

Problem Overview

Current polls and rapid‐response studies of Burge and Fowler presented data showing that individuals identified as religious or religiously conservative were more likely to disbelieve scientific sources and less likely to social distance, wear masks, or otherwise take recommended precautionary measures while more secular Americans were more likely to follow these guidelines (Burge 2020). Additionally, American Christians are 13% less likely to wear masks in public compared to the general population (58.7% vs. 71.8%) (Burge 2020). This may be because Christians are reported at being 9% less likely to say that they are "somewhat" or "very" worried about being infected by the virus than American people in general (Burge 2020). These views may have been due to political polarization and hindered strategies to curtail the pandemic’s spread (Hill et al., 2020). A recent Gallup Poll research group investigated the impact of religious groups on personal health. They tested the theory that COVID-19 will cause a loss of faith but discovered that the COVID-19 crisis has enhanced spirituality and religion for many Americans and aided to cope with anxiety and depression (Newport 2020). With the Covid 19 pandemic, 19% of those interviewed felt their faith or spirituality had "gotten better" during the crisis (Newport 2020). Gallup senior expert and scientist Frank Newport, Ph.D., noticed that "One of the traditional roles of religious individuals and religious entities has been to bring a helpful, integrative, pro- social, charitable behavior function in crises." (Newport 2020). There are three different problems between Evangelical representatives and the government. First, church leaders see closing churches as a political act and not a health caution (Burge 2020). Second, the government violated the people's rights through unequal treatment. The third problem is miscommunication between church leaders and government during any pandemic (Evans 2020). The lack of dialogue and trust can lead to churches being large centers spreading coronavirus (Mass Legal Services 2020). For example, the New York Times posted database claiming that at least 650 coronavirus cases have been directly linked to approximately 40 churches and religious events (Evans 2020). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention council stated that the virus can spread at large gatherings and infect more people. They cited a case where two church guests infected 35 others with Covid 19 at a church event in Arkansas (Evans 2020). After Colorado's governor issued a statewide rule mandating masks, church members at New Life Church in Colorado did not follow this restriction (Mass Legal Services Source 2020). In Arkansas, three people died, and many church attendants tested positive in March after being exposed to two people who showed up at a church function with COVID symptoms. In Washington state, dozens of choral group members were infected after a single symptomatic person attended a 2½-hour practice. Two people died. (Hammer and et. All 2020).

Criteria for success

The first criteria are that health authorities and the government need to plan for a strong communication network with religious leaders that can react accordingly as soon as a potential epidemic emerges. It should be legal within the Constitution's framework and involve church leaders to help organize aspects of the nation's spiritual life (Briskey 2020). Currently, politicians are viewed with distrust, so religious leaders may help ensure greater compliance by assisting people in following potentially life-saving advice. The second criteria are that churches that do not follow guidelines should be subject to penalties for the actual harm they cause. Third, churches should use more time on the media channels to inspire people to be more patient and calmer (Briskey 2010). The fourth criteria is that the solution will help fight fake news and bring lasting solutions to disinformation through regulatory changes while maintaining the media's rights. These regulations will help supply context and expand beneficial friction as near-term, aggressive moderation methods for coronavirus misinformation (Simpson and Connor 2020). The Media should require significant resources and enhanced clarity to confirm that they can curb false or harmful content about the pandemic and not mistakenly penalize the critical work of the press, public health organizations, advocates, and civil society (Simpson and Connor 2020). The fifth criteria is that church leaders should stand up and fight for their community's rights, both political and health. They need to maintain religious freedom, but not at the cost of their communities' health. They should fight for staying open with a developed safety plan, keeping cultural and religious life going during pandemic threats (The Heritage Foundation 2020). One more idea presented by the Brooking Institute is that the United States should create a permanent federal health communications unit to build a system of connections between local, state, and federal health authorities. It will help establish and regulate public communications strategies based on the latest health communications research (Tworek 2020).

Medical Perspective on Reopening Churches

The latest study provided by Boston University in association with the JAVA Psychiatry group showes that the prevalence of depression symptoms was more than 3-fold higher during COVID-19 compared with the latest population-based estimates of mental health disease in the US (Ettman, Abdalla, and et al., 2020, 9-15). This growth in depression symptom predominance is higher than that recorded after previous mass traumatic events. This likely demonstrates the far more pervasive effect of COVID-19 and its social and economic consequences than other, previously explored mass traumatic events (Beusekom 2020). The results showed that 27.8% of adults reported depression symptoms, in contrast with 8.5% before the pandemic. Increases were higher across the spectrum of depression severity, from mild (24.6% vs. 16.2% before the pandemic) to severe (5.1% vs. 0.7%) (Healthline 2020). Today, the large-scale psychological impacts intensify the need for mental health care across the population (Amsalem, Dixon and Neria 2020, 5-9). Therefore, Christian leaders, organizations, and churches can be additional mental health resources (Miller 2020). In the research work written by Fruehwirth, Iyer, and Zhang, they proved that religiosity positively affects depression. In particular, a one-unit advance in religiosity, e.g., coming to the church service one more time a month, declines the odds of being depressed by 3% out of a probability of 24% (Fruehwirth, Iyer and Zhang 2016, 1-7). JAMA Psychiatry published a study showing that meditation or any other form of regular spiritual practice along with attending a church was related to a thickening of the brain cortex (Miller, Bansal and et al. 2014, 89-94). The study was the first to explore physical changes in the brain associated with the protective effects of faith against depression (Miller, Bansal and et al. 2014). The impressive part of the study was that the MRI images demonstrated thicker cortices in those participants who established high importance on religion or spirituality than those who did not (Johnson 2020). Shutting down churches and pastoral counseling, even when they follow the rules, can have a negative impact on the resiliency of the populous. This situation must be examined from the medical, legal, and religious perspectives (Amsalem, Dixon and Neria 2020, 5-9).

Research and Data Analysis of Lockdown Policies

The graphic above from a Pew Research Center analysis, posted in May, presented state religious restrictions (Villa 2020). The map was updated with numbers in red, which illustrate the specific lockdown policy related to church gatherings. To quantify the data, a score from 1-5 will be used to describe the severity of the lockdown policy. 0 is a policy that includes no restrictions at all, which means churches can gather the same way as always by wearing masks and following guidelines, such as self-imposed 15 feet social distance rules. 1 will be used for policies that restrict church gatherings restricted to 75% of the average population or more; 2 will be for policies restricting attendance from 50% to under 75% of their average population, 3 for policies between 25% and 50%, 4 will include allowing drive-in services and restrictions to below 25% of the average population, 5 will consist of rules that close a church, including limitations on drive-in services and gatherings. Additional data gathered from October to November reveal that only ten states have banned in person gatherings in any form (Villa 2020). Thirty states do not have specific guidance for churches on attendance (Villa 2020). When looking at restrictions, specifically on churches, there are no states, which have wholly banned religious services. Two have limited churches to below 25% of the average population, 4 allow 50-75%, five states have restricted attendance to 75% or less of ordinary, and nine limited attendance to 25-50% of the people. Churches have either ignored the requirements or found inventive ways to support their congregations while following the rules. Richmond First Baptist Church, like many churches in Virginia, have opened their doors in October and follow guidelines for worshiping during in- person worship services under state safety protocols (Richmond First Baptist Church, n.d.). The state requirements include taking temperatures upon arrival, wearing masks at all times, and following a 6 foot distance separation between families and individuals. Churches also have services on their social media channels and television broadcasts (Richmond First Baptist Church, n.d.). Another example from West Virginia is Graystone Baptist Church. This church had a massive coronavirus outbreak with 41 cases, which led to a broader coronavirus explosion in the area. The pastor encouraged, but did not put any restrictions on his parishioners to wear masks and did not curtail services when many people would not wear masks (McElhinny 2020). South Carolina and Florida have approved religious ceremonies by classifying them as essential along with supermarkets and healthcare infrastructure. A total of 15 states have agreed to decrease restrictions on religious gatherings to continue with no limits on their size, while another 22 have said that they can still organize services. Still, benefits are limited to no more than ten people or less (Villa 2020). The CDC confirmed that gatherings of 10 people or more should require a minimum of 6 feet between participants. (Villa 2020). Possibly with such litigation in mind, most other states have cut out restrictions on religious gatherings in their stay-at-home requirements to balance spiritual freedom concerns with safe social distancing practices (Villa 2020). Other states like Florida, South Carolina, and Tennessee have included churches in the “essential” category. Approximately one-third of the states allow religious gatherings to continue without any limit on their size (Gonsalez and Siddiqi 2020). Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia allow religious meetings as long as they are restricted to 10 people or less; this includes Rhode Island, where gatherings are limited to five people. In other states like Connecticut and Oregon, religious groups may be up to 50 and 25 people, respectively (Villa 2020). Pastors of churches are leaders and should take responsibility to ensure that their people's health and wellness are a priority regardless of political persuasion. It appears to them that the current problem with the church-state response to Covid 19 is political, not religious. Some pastors believe that information from health authorities is invalid and minimize the danger. They also think that the government is infringing on their rights for no good reason. Some states allowed businesses and strip clubs to stay open while churches were shut down, even if they followed mask/social distance guidelines. These cases present an excellent reason to appeal to courts to fight for civil rights. The fight does not originate in ignoring guidelines but using demonstrations, formal complaints, and suing the government. In Oregon, the Lighthouse Pentecostal Church in Island City demonstrated how not to respond to the government restrictions since they were at the center of a large outbreak. The church held services in April and May even though Oregon put limitations on communities (Cline 2020). In turn, 66% of the 356 people at the church ended up positive for the virus. The church had many videos on their website of different events showing members breaking social distancing rules; those have now been taken down (Cline 2020). There are positive examples of how many churches in America are being cautious, implementing distancing necessities, forgoing singing, and requiring members to put on masks (Money 2020). A pastor in Orange County, California, requested that the church’s board of supervisors reimplement and enforce a mask requirement (Money 2020). A pastor, Steve Bezner, from a Houston church looked at the mask requirements from a different perspective and explained to parishioners that masks represent loving one’s of neighbor. When in-person services began again in early June, masks were required to be worn upon entering the church building (Barria 2020). When a pandemic rage across America, wearing a mask and social distance rules should not be a political issue. These are an imperative of public health and should be the rule for all American citizens (Barria 2020). From the Christian perspective, if people fully accepted that they should love and respect their neighbors as themselves, then wearing masks ought to be obvious, not a political game. A pastor has a responsibility to make sure his people understand their accountability for their choices and their behavior before God (Barria 2020). The situation is different with states that do not keep the same rules for everyone, including restaurants, businesses, churches, and strip clubs. The rules should apply equally across industries. In February of 2021, the rules appeared to apply more fairly to the faith-based organizations and commercial organizations with a few exceptions, where Oregon is more restrictive on the faith-based organizations than other industries. California has relaxed their faith based restrictions after losing legal challenges. Wyoming continues to give preferential treatment to the faith-based organizations (Genovese 2020). Legal Issues

Churches from California and Minnesota filed lawsuits in August against the governors of their states. They are challenging restrictions imposed due to the coronavirus outbreak, which they view as an infringement on their religious liberty. So far, some of the suites have been denied, while others have succeeded. Covid restrictions interfere with concepts like freedom and inalienable rights—life, liberty, and property (Crary 2020). Church leaders claim it unconstitutional to institute permanent bans on gatherings at churches or worship houses (Conger, Healy, and Tompkins 2020). In America, the Constitution exists to protect the people's inalienable rights from governmental overreach. Therefore, when the government restricts some people's rights over the rights of other at-risk populations such as the elderly, the policies must be examined. During Covid, the government could have done a better job finding ways to preserve religious life in America while maintaining safe guidelines in states like California. In that state, religious rights were violated because of discriminatory policies targeting churches (Associated Press 2020). In this particular suit, the church argued that the church’s limit of 50 people per service matched the 50% capacity restriction on other opened venues and had identical social distancing rules (Associated Press 2020). Another example of the unconstitutional governmental intervention was seen when Pastor Gibson was stopped from hosting a drive-through Easter Egg giveaway service, where social distancing rules were followed, and church staff members were protected with masks and gloves (Buffalo News 2020). Across the road and within viewing distance of the church, baristas were serving lattes, restaurants were making fries, and other people were buying liquor. These sanctions illustrate the inequality of rights and treatment that churches received during the government's pandemic (Buffalo News 2020). Church visitors who attended a drive-in service at a church in Greenville, Mississippi, were fined $500 for violating a curfew order from the mayor (Buffalo News 2020). During a Thursday night service at King James Bible Baptist Church, parishioners who had not exited their vehicles were surrounded by the Greenville Police. These incidences are violations of the church's constitutional rights by the government (Suriani 2020). Another example of unconstitutional intervention happened in San Diego. Indoor operations in the places such as restaurants, museums, places of worship, breweries, and retail businesses had to either close completely, move to outdoor operations only, or alter services in other ways (Mettler 2020). Strip clubs remained open indoors, against the restrictions on gatherings in other places (Mettler 2020). A deeply divided Supreme Court decided in May-June 2020 to let churches in California and Illinois hold services inside and gather people amid the coronavirus pandemic with more worshippers than state plans permitted (Wolf 2020). They did not discuss the legality of drive-in services but focused attention on responding to the church's complaint about violating their constitutional right to gather (Wolf 2020). Chief Justice John Roberts, who cast the deciding vote in the more consequential California case, declared just before midnight that choosing when to lift restrictions during a pandemic is the business of elected officials, not unelected judges (Supreme Court 2020). He has joined the vote of the court's four liberal authorities. He brought up the good point that this situation shows that governors have not planned a satisfactory response or explanation to churches about why they should be closed and left it up to the judges to solve the conflict. This should also involve CDC experts, which should take part in this discussion as well, since they can analyze the damage or the positive results that decision might bring (South Bay Church vs. Gavin Newsom 2020). The final decision that judges made in California's case stated that the guidelines placed limitations on places of worship, and those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, Roberts wrote. Similar or more severe conditions apply to proportionate secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people got together in closeness for extended periods (U.S. Government Information, n.d.). At the same time, this point does not make sense if talking about restaurants, casinos, or strip clubs, where people gather and spend the same amount of time (Chertoff 2020). In the church, it is possible to seat people far enough away from each other to follow CDC guidelines, just like casinos or restaurants. In different cases, churches were able to find other forms of assembly (Chertoff 2020). On the other side, there are problems with reopening churches at the highest court level since the decision from the Nevada Supreme Court was unconstitutional. The court was divided concerning a case where they turned down a Nevada church’s request to hold services on the same terms as other facilities in the state, including casinos, which are allowed to have gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic (Sonnier 2020). Chief Justice John Roberts followed the court's more liberal justices in denying the Christian church's request. Judges made an incorrect decision since the "Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion," it "says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack." (Howe 2020). When an institution that is specifically protected operates within the same guidelines as other unprotected industries, the government should protect them accordingly (Sonnier 2020). The state rejected the church's suggestion that casinos and churches should be open under the same conditions. Unlike houses of worship, the state noted, casinos are "highly regulated" industries that face "significant punishment" if they do not abide by COVID-19 restrictions and can be shut down quickly during different waves of pandemics. The state was arguing that during the COVID-19 regulations, religious services already earn better treatment than similar mass gatherings like lectures, concerts, sporting events, and plays (Howe 2020). The state concluded that churches could hold their entire congregation if they would better organize their services with less amount of time (Sonnier 2020).

Church funding

The other question that has not been explored and discussed in the paper is government funding of churches during a pandemic. According to the Paycheck Protection Program of the Cares Act (U.S Small Business Administration 2020), the houses of worship gained hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding under the loan program. Under this program, churches, like any other business or nonprofit employer, need funding to continue paying salaries to their employees. Some 9,000 Catholic churches have had their applications for federal funding accepted, according to CBS News reporting. Lifeway Research presented a survey that found that 40 percent of Protestant churches had filed documents for the loans (and 59 percent of those applications were approved) (Capatides 2020). Furthermore, the federal government is directly subsidizing the salaries of clergy across the country (Tebbe, Schwartzman, and Schragger 2020). Should churches be funded under the theory of separation of church and state (Burstein 2020)? The question is centered in part on whether the government is “establishing” a religion or endorsing a specific faith, or faith at all, by giving money to an entity with a religious purpose. Another issue that appears is that religious groups could be harmed or corrupted by government intrusion, including money that come with requirements or rules that might violate or meddle with spiritual teachings or values. The Cares Act was enacted to guarantee small companies’ paychecks through the Small Business Administration (U.S Small Business Administration 2020). If churches receive money from the federal government, should they be under the same rules as other industries (U.S Small Business Administration 2020)? These examples show the confused state of constitutional rules and understanding of the relationship between government and religion. On one hand, churches claim that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment entitles them to special exemptions from stay-at-home orders (Tebbe, Schwartzman, and Schragger 2020). On the other hand, they also say that spiritual organizations should be treated the same way or under the same conditions as nonreligious organizations when it comes to taxpayer funding. They rely implicitly on a 2017 decision, Trinity Lutheran v. Comer. Congregations claim that the free exercise clause is relevant because the government is not treating them the same. In many places, individual "essential" businesses may keep their business open, though others, including houses of worship, must close their doors and go online. If stay-at-home orders do not apply to some secular organizations — liquor stores have become the stock example, though hospitals and grocery stores have been deemed essential, too — then religious groups expect to receive the same exemptions (Tebbe, Schwartzman and Schragger 2020) To sum up, the biggest question that needs to figure out for the government and courts is that how churches should be treated. Because, during the analysis of the previous paper and new one, the government put churches in confusion and courts. They can take money from the government institutions like small business organizations but cannot be open on the same following guides as businesses in many states. New Act confronts government restrictions according to the churches reopening and leads to further discussion of the ruling of the First Amendment clause.

Alternative Policy Options

A series of discussions began in early March 2020 led by the World Health Organization's new office to provide public information on the Pandemic, which explicitly included religious leaders (Marshall 2020). This office drafted guidelines and asked for comments before the guidelines were finalized, giving faith-based organizations a chance to shape recommendations and new policies (Marshall 2020). In alternatives, we will talk about practical ways of Covid 19 responses that shaped many people and were useful in the ways of Covid 19 response. The alternative analysis consists from: a) Online stories to support people emotionally b) Guidelines communicated to the churches on how to handle Covid 19 c) Creative ways to broadcast or use online church services and zoom d) Posted guidelines and recommendations for industry e) Drive-in services During this Pandemic, people appeared to like virtual worship. Nine Americans out of 10 Americans (20,000 total interviewed) watched church streaming online or on Television in the previous month say they are either "very" satisfied (54%) or "somewhat" satisfied (37%) with their experience. Just 8% say they are “not too” or “not at all” convinced with broadcast services according to a Pew Research Center survey in mid-July (Pew Research Center 2020). These alternatives seem like excellent strategies to survive churches during the Covid-19 Pandemic (Pew Research Center 2020). Another excellent example of an alternative response came from Rev. Ruth Wolff- Bonsirven, church leader in Alsace-Lorraine in eastern France (Wasmuth 2020). In mid-March, she was ill with the COVID-19 virus, and after she regained her strength, she encouraged pastors and others to deal with COVID- 19 (Alsace-Lorraine 2020). After the beginning of the lockdown, she has been writing and sharing a daily reflection entitled a ‘flower of the day’, which was illustrated by a colleague-photographer (Alsace-Lorraine 2020). According to her words, “As the quarantine began, I feared we would lose our sense of time, but instead we are turning in to a different rhythm of the natural world, where the progression of time is measured through the life cycles of flowers and plants” (Alsace-Lorraine 2020). She emerged as a church leader and showed to the people that she is a human being, who as well scared of changes, but God kept her on track. She succeeded in establishing the beauty of the world even during rough times. Her writings included reflections, poems, inspirations, verses, links to online music, and church community news. Her report illustrates how the church leaders can encourage people to stay connected with the community during rough times (Alsace-Lorraine 2020). This is an example of how spiritual and interpersonal interventions can help people deal with anxiety. Of 30 clinical trials, 19 (63%) found that religious and spiritual interventions produced better outcomes in treating depression than standard treatment or control groups (Bonelly, Rasegh and Dew 2012, 6-19). Two studies (7%) found traditional treatments were superior to R/S interventions, and one study reported mixed results. Of the 32 randomized clinical trials, 22 (69%) reported that an R/S intervention reduced anxiety more than a standard intervention or control condition (Smith, McCullough and Poll 2003, 614-636). Another practical answer and recommendations were provided from the Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. On July 10, this organization provided church leaders with guidance to help enhance public health (Strode 2020). Another example, Pastor Paul Chappell of Lancaster Baptist Church has already been able to minister in person nearly 7,000 members (Strode 2020). He used Zoom to Livestream services during the pandemic, and the church's staff prepared meals for elderly community members and dropped off lunches at the local hospitals (Mahbubani 2020). Lancaster Baptist Church members are wearing face masks and gloves to the church. Chappell’s church allows up to 20% of the church’s maximum occupancy per service to host four or five services instead of two. After each turn, the church is sanitized (Mahbubani 2020). The ERLC's “Statement of Principles of Church-Civic Partnership on Contact Tracing” was released as COVID-19 cases increase in many states after periods of decline (The Courier 2020). On the website of Creative Church Ideas, there are guidelines for participating in the drive-in church services and how they should be organized (Wakefield 2020). In the March Bethel Church in Evansville, pastor Dr. Prince Samuel signed a contract with a lighting and stage company. This company was available, due to the cancellations of concerts and did not have any orders (Miller 2020). The company built a stage, set up a speaker system, and hung a big screen that presented a full-size picture to the back row (Miller 2020). Hamilton Heights God's Missionary Church has been organizing drive-in services because of CDC gathering restrictions and government bans (Editorial 2020). It was systematized so that members of the congregation can quickly drive into the church's parking lot and come to Sunday worship from their vehicle's safety with mandatory distance and mask requirements (Editorial 2020).

General Recommendations

The successes and failures of these pandemic reactions offer five pertinent lessons on why communication between religion and government can detract from effective public policy, as well as positive paths towards constructive engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic (First Liberty 2020). An essential first step to reducing pandemic spread would be a dialogue between faith- based organizations and the government (First Liberty 2020). Dialogue between churches and government is not the only key for preventing the spread of the virus, but a tool for reducing panic among people (First Liberty 2020). More quantitative data can be gathered through questionnaires to see how faith can help mentally heal those people who have problems with depression and anxiety, which determines churches' efficacy as a treatment (Strode 2020).

Conclusion

Moreover, trust is vital to enact public health interventions and deal with the economic and social issues that come with pandemics (London and Sidiqqi 2020). Surveys show that religious leaders are often among the most trusted leaders, while politicians are often mistrusted. In their authority position, these leaders can play a vital role in tackling the fear and misinformation surrounding COVID-19 (Marshall 2020). Closing churches has positive and negative affects; if church organizations follow health policies there could be a large net positive and help prevent mass spread of the virus (London and Sidiqqi 2020). Today, communication between the government and faith leaders should be prioritized on the legislative level, so changes can be made to the existing laws. Those churches who disobey the law and are proven be the cause for harming others should held accountable for the harm they caused. Those churches who support the country during pandemics should be encouraged and thanked.

References

Andreassi, Jon.2020. “Miscommunication leads to confusion over drive-in church service”, Observer Reporter, April 8, 2020. https://observer- reporter.com/news/localnews/miscommunication-leads-to-confusion-over-drive-in- church-service/article_4a7c636c-78dc-11ea-9f6e-5bf6e4845591.html Aten, Jamie and Annan Kent. 2020. “PREPARING Your CHURCH for Coronavirus (COVID- 19)”, Humanitarian Disaster Institute, February 2020: (p.13-20). https://www.wheaton.edu/media/humanitarian-disaster-institute/Preparing-Your-Church- for-Coronavirus.pdf Barria, Carlos. 2020. “Trump's Phoenix megachurch rally proves how much faith and masks are now political”, NBC news, June 24, 2020. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-phoenix-megachurch-rally-proves- how-much-faith-face-ncna1231992 Biertempfel, Maddie.2020. “Confirmation amid COVID-19 bringing challenges to churches”, Local News, October 24, 2020. https://www.kxnet.com/news/local-news/confirmation- amid-covid-19-bringing-challenges-to-churches/ Briskey, F. Mark. 2020. “Protecting political leaders from Covid-19”, The Interpreter, October 3, 2020. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/technology- policy/reports/2020/08/18/488714/fighting-coronavirus-misinformation-disinformation/ Buffalo News, 2020. “Coronavirus outbreak coverage”, Staff, March 9, 2020. https://buffalonews.com/news/local/coronavirus-outbreak-coverage/article_881cadd1- 5b99-5a23-b616-19cc5de10088.html Chertoff, Justin. “Chief Justice Roberts wisely defers to California governor in church challenge”, The Hill, April 6, 2020. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/500497-chief- justice-roberts-wisely-defers-to-california-governor-in-church Cline, Sarah. 2020. “Trump's Phoenix megachurch rally proves how much faith and masks are now political”, NBC news, June 24, 2020. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-phoenix-megachurch-rally-proves- how-much-faith-face-ncna1231992 Crary, David. 2020. “More US churches sue to challenge COVID-19 restrictions”, ABC News, August 13, 2020. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-churches-sue-challenge- covid-19-restrictions-72360487 Editorial, 2020. “Churches Holding Drive-In Services”, God's Missionary Church, March 23, 2020. https://godsmissionarychurch.org/2020/03/23/churches-holding-drive-in-services/ Evans, Erica, 2020. “Here’s what the science says about the links between religion and health”, Desert News, June 13, 2020. https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/6/13/21273906/coronavirus-faith-religion-health- science-link-prayer-study-longevity-covid-19-substance-use Geppert, Cynthia and Ronald Pies. 2020. “The Upside and Downside of Religion, Spirituality, and Health”, Psychiatric Times, July 16, 2020.https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/upside-downside-religion-spirituality- health Gjelten, Tom. 2020. “Things Will Never Be the Same. How The Pandemic Has Changed Worship”, NPR, May 20, 2020. https://www.npr.org/2020/05/20/858918339/things-will- never-be-the-same-how-the-pandemic-has-changed-worship Howe, Amy. 2020. “Justices decline to intervene in dispute over Nevada COVID-19 restrictions”, Scotus Blog (Supreme Court of Unites States blog), July 24, 2020. https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/justices-decline-to-intervene-in-dispute-over- nevada-covid-19-restrictions/ Koenig HG, George LK, Peterson BL. Religiosity and remission of depression in medically ill odder patients. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1998, vol. 155, issue 4 (p. 536–542). Mahbubani, Rhea. 2020. “The governor is a servant of the state. I am a servant of God': 3 pastors defend why they're leading the charge to reopen churches”, Business Insider, May 24, 2020. https://www.businessinsider.com/pastors-leading-charge-reopen-churches- coronavirus-first-amendment-2020-5 Marshall, Katherine. 2020. “What Religion Can Offer in the Response to COVID-19”, World Politics Review, May 26, 2020. https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/insights/28789/religion-and-covid-19-faith-during- a-pandemic Mass Legal Services, 2020. “News and updates on church Covid 19 cases”, The Online Resource for Massachusetts Poverty Law Advocates, May 2020. https://www.masslegalservices.org/aggregator/2010/11/an-interview-with-brian- kuhagen?page=5 Mettler, Zachary. 2020. “California Judge Grants Strip Clubs Constitutional Right to Reopen, Churches Remain Shuttered”, The Daily Citizen, November 19, 2020. https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/california-judge-grants-strip-clubs- constitutional-right-to-reopen-churches-remain-shuttered/ Miller, Rhonda. 2020. “Evansville Church Holds Drive-In Worship Service to Maintain 'Social Distancing”, Wku, March 24, 2020. https://www.wkyufm.org/post/evansville-church- holds-drive-worship-service-maintain-social-distancing#stream/0 Money, Luke. 2020. “Orange County rescinds coronavirus mask mandate amid pushback, resignation”, Los Angeles Times, June 11, 2020. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-11/orange-county-rescinds- coronavirus-mask-mandate-face-coverings-still-strongly-recommended Leatherwood, Brent and Travis Wussow.2020. “Statement of Principles of Church–Civic Partnership on Contact Tracing”, The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, July 10, 2020. https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/statement-of-principles-of-church-civic- partnership-on-contact-tracing/ Newport, Frank. 2020. “The Religion Paradox”, gallup.com, May 8, 2020. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/310397/religion-paradox.aspx Pew Research Center. 2020. “Americans Oppose Religious Exemptions from Coronavirus- Related Restrictions”, Pewdorum.org, May 2020. https://www.pewforum.org/2020/08/07/americans-oppose-religious-exemptions-from- coronavirus-related-restrictions/ Pew Research Center 2020. “Attending and watching religious services in the age of the coronavirus”, Religion and Public Life, August 7, 2020. https://www.pewforum.org/2020/08/07/attending-and-watching-religious-services-in-the- age-of-the-coronavirus/ Richmond's First Baptist Church, 2020. “Coronavirus Update”, fbcrichmond, October 18, 2020. https://www.fbcrichmond.org/about-us/ministry-organization/community/coronavirus- update/ Robinson, Kali. 2020. “How Are Major Religions Responding to the Coronavirus?”, Council on Foreign Relations, March 19, 2020. https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/how-are-major- religions-responding-coronavirus Rodgers, Jacob. 2020. “Colorado Springs churches reopening as pandemic continues”, APnews, July 30, 2020. https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-pandemics-colorado-springs- colorado-20429531b99fa32b8735f055331e6670 Siddiqqi, Maggie and Guthrie Graves - Fitzimmons 2020. “Religious Exemptions During the Coronavirus Pandemic Will Only Worsen the Crisis”, American Progress, March 27, 2020. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2020/03/27/482359/religious- exemptions-coronavirus-pandemic-will-worsen-crisis/ Simpson, Erin and Adam Conner. 2020. “Fighting Coronavirus Misinformation and Disinformation”, Center for American Progress, August 18, 2020. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/technology- policy/reports/2020/08/18/488714/fighting-coronavirus-misinformation-disinformation/ SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, ET AL. v. GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, 590 U. S. ____ (2020), No. 19A1044, Supremecourt.gov. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf Suriani, Mike. 2020. “Mississippi churchgoers fined $500 while attending drive-in service”, Wreg news, April 10, 2020. https://wreg.com/news/coronavirus/mississippi-churchgoers- fined-500-while-attending-drive-in-service/ Strode, Tom. 2020. “ERLC encourages church, civic partnership on COVID-19 contact tracing”, Baptist Press, July 13, 2020. http://m.bpnews.net/55084/erlc-encourages-church-civic- partnership-on-covid19-contact-tracing The Courier, 2020. “ERLC encourages church, civic partnership on COVID-19 contact tracing”, Baptist Courier, August 11, 2020. https://baptistcourier.com/2020/08/erlc-encourages- church-civic-partnership-on-covid-19-contact-tracing/ The Associated Press, 2020. “Two churches in Colorado granted exemption from state coronavirus guidelines”, The Colorado Sun, October 22, 2020. Tworek, Heidi. 2020. “Why the U.S. needs a pandemic communications unit”, Brookings, April 29, 2020. https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/why-the-u-s-needs-a-pandemic- communications-unit/https://coloradosun.com/2020/10/22/colorado-churches-granted- coronavirus-exception/ Vigdor, Neil. 2020. “Pastor Who Defied Social Distancing Dies After Contracting Covid-19, Church Says”, The New York Times, April14, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/us/bishop-gerald-glenn-coronavirus.html Villa, Virginiia. 2020. “Most states have religious exemptions to COVID-19 social distancing rules”, Pew Research Center, April 27, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2020/04/27/most-states-have-religious-exemptions-to-covid-19-social-distancing- rules/ Wakefield, Ryan. 2020. “The Ultimate Coronavirus Guide for Churches”, Church Marketing University, November 2020. https://churchmarketinguniversity.com/the-ultimate- coronavirus-guide-for-churches/ Wildman Wesley, Joseph Bulbulia, Richard Sosis and Uffe Schjoedt. 2020. “Religion and the COVID-19 pandemic, Religion, Brain and Behavior”, Journal for the Scientific Study and Religion 10, issue 2. April 15, 2020. DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2020.1749339. Wolf, Richard. 2020. “Supreme Court won't force states to speed up church reopening”, USA Today, May 30, 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/05/30/church- reopenings-supreme-court-refuses-force-governors- hands/5281999002/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2153599X.2020.17493 39 The Heritage Foundation. 2020. “Religious Freedom: What’s at Stake If We Lose It”, Heritage. org, June 2020. https://www.heritage.org/religious-liberty/heritage-explains/religious- freedom-whats-stake-if-we-lose-it