The Law against God

While the world watches transfixed as Trump plays Russian Roulette with his American subjects, the Governor of Nevada, the Satrap of his Paradise State, determined to follow suit, dealt a sordid hand to God- once the best Blackjack in business.

Aggrieved by the rigged deck, God turned towards the Order of the Nine Templars of the United States Supreme Court, craving an intercessory injunction against the Sovereign of the Desert and his gubernatorial mandate.

I.

Taste this.

"The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine, or to engage in any other game of chance. But the Governor of Nevada apparently has different priorities. Claiming virtually unbounded power to restrict constitutional rights during the COVID–19 pandemic, he has issued a directive that severely limits attendance at religious services. A church, synagogue, or mosque, regardless of its size, may not admit more than 50 persons, but casinos and certain other favored facilities may admit 50% of their maximum occupancy— and in the case of gigantic Las Vegas casinos, this means that thousands of patrons are allowed.

That Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees may not come as a surprise, but this Court’s willingness to allow such discrimination is disappointing. We have a duty to defend the Constitution, and even a public health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility."

II.

Now this:

"This is a simple case. Under the Governor’s edict, a 10- screen “multiplex” may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there. Large numbers and close quarters are fine in such places. But churches, synagogues, and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshippers—no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all. In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. 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."

III.

And finally, this:

"Under its current reopening plan, Nevada allows restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms to grant entrance to up to 50% of their total occupancy limit—no matter how many people that may be. For example, a casino with a 500-person occupancy limit may let in up to 250 people. By contrast, places of worship may only take in a maximum of 50 people, without exception, regardless of the occupancy cap. So unlike a casino next door, a church with a 500-person occupancy limit may let in only 50 people, not 250 people. Nevada has offered no persuasive justification for that overt discrimination against places of worship. The risk of COVID–19 transmission is at least as high at restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms as it is at religious services. Indeed, people congregating in restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms often linger at least as long as they do at religious services. And given the safety measures that Calvary Chapel and other places of worship are following—including social distancing, mask wearing, and certain additional voluntary measures—it is evident that people interact with others at restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms at least as closely as they do at religious services. In my view, Nevada’s discrimination against religious services violates the Constitution. To be clear, a State’s closing or reopening plan may subject religious organizations to the same limits as secular organizations. And in light of the devastating COVID–19 pandemic, those limits may be very strict. But a State may not impose strict limits on places of worship and looser limits on restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms, at least without sufficient justification for the differential treatment of religion. As I will explain, Nevada has thus far failed to provide a sufficient justification, and its current reopening plan therefore violates the First Amendment."

Regardless of legal training, most would agree with the reasoning. Even those who'd prefer Casinos over Church each day of their waking lives.

But here's the rub:

These passages constitute dissenting opinions that bled from the despairing pens of the Justices of the US Supreme Court; to wit, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh respectively.

The Cause: Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v Steve Sisolak, Governor of Nevada, et al.

A couple of months ago, the Church had lost a similar battle in the State of California (South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. v Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, et al). In the words of Kavanaugh, J., who stood up in dissent then as he did last week:

"In response to the COVID–19 health crisis, California has now limited attendance at religious worship services to 25% of building capacity or 100 attendees, whichever is lower. The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries."

Read these dissents not for the law they propound, for they don't; but for the beauty of the ideas they crusade.

And commiserations to those who might per chance recall to mind the idle rant of Nietzsche, the archetypal Madman:

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”

The Law might work in mysterious ways; but the ways of the Sovereign would seem perpetually capricious.

The 21st century Man might be engaged in a war against God to invert the ancient truth coined by Shakespeare:

As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport.

But then, God, undisputed World Champion of Games of Chance, in perpetuity, has his swarm of viruses and plague of locusts to blight the audacity of his/her Mortal foe.