Keeping it safe for legislators and democracy in Springfield
Two ignorant lawmakers say they don’t know if they’ll wear face masks when the Illinois Legislature meets in Springfield this week.
They have been asked by their legislative leaders to wear masks. Even a cursory understanding of how COVID-19 spreads should make it obvious to them that they should wear masks. And they’ll be putting others at risk if they do not.
“It boils down, in my book, to a matter of personal choice,” state Rep. Brad Halbrook, R-Shelbyville, told the Sun-Times, talking foolishly. Halbrook might just as well argue that it’s his “personal choice” to drive the wrong way down a one-way street.
“If someone doesn’t want to wear a mask, then they’re simply taking the risk themselves,” said state Rep. Darren Bailey, R-Xenia, equally foolishly. The threat is to himself, no doubt — but to everybody else, as well.
When the Legislature reconvenes Wednesday, for a session expected to last through Friday, a very real concern among lawmakers is that they will face a heightened risk of contracting the coronavirus and that angry demonstrators could physically attempt to intimidate them.
They’re unnerved, they tell us, that some of their colleagues might not respect COVID-19 safety measures. And they’re concerned, they say, that they could run into a buzz saw of militant protesters — some possibly armed — like the kind seen lately at statehouse rallies around the country.
In caucus meetings held remotely, they have discussed the “intimidation factor.”
Guns and politics
Unlike some other states, Illinois doesn’t allow “open carry,” meaning gun owners can’t openly display their weapons. But Illinois does allow “concealed carry,” meaning you never really know which red-faced demonstrators protesting Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s social distancing restrictions might be packing heat.
“Some people would say it is more dangerous,” said Kathleen Sances, president and CEO of the Illinois Gun Violence Prevention PAC. “You don’t know who has the guns.”
Guns have no place in a political debate, especially when tensions are running high, as they are now. State and city of Springfield police will have to be on high alert this week, showing zero tolerance for threatening or intimidating behavior. Legislators who refuse to wear a mask should be barred from the proceedings.
If any of this sounds alarmist, consider the behavior of right-wing extremists in other states.
On Thursday, Michigan officials were forced to close the capitol building and cancel a legislative session after Gov. Gretchen Whitmer received death threats from protesters opposing her shutdown order.
This month, Michigan lawmakers were forced to walk a gantlet of protesters armed with military-style weapons. Additionally, a phalanx of armed protesters lined up outside a barbershop that remained open in defiance of the governor’s lockdown order.
Similar armed groups in Texas have lined up outside businesses to challenge government lockdown orders. In North Carolina, heavily armed protesters have gathered in bars in defiance of local shutdown orders. In Idaho, protesters are urging people to forcibly resist such orders.
A growing threat
Extremists have been threatening armed resistance for decades. In a visit with the Sun-Times Editorial Board in 2013, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a point of saying she worries about groups arming themselves to “fight the government.”
Daryl Johnson, who has tracked domestic terrorists in the United States for 20 years for the federal government and as a consultant, told us Friday the threat of antigovernment militias has gotten worse since Pelosi voiced her concerns. All 50 states now have armed organizations that encourage using firearms to oppose government, he said.
“This isn’t about people exercising Second Amendment rights,” Johnson said. “This is about intimidation, a show of force, trying to harass and intimidate the opposition, whether it is government officials or counterprotesters. It is silencing the opposition.”
Geoffrey Stone, a constitutional scholar at the University of Chicago Law School, said gun advocates do have a right to display weapons in an “expressive context” where open carry is legal, such as during a march in support of gun rights. But the Constitution does not protect the display of firearms used in a threatening or intimidating manner, he said.
This week in Springfield
Every state, even the most progun friendly, should prohibit the public parading of weapons for the obvious purpose of putting a chill on free speech and governance.
Every protester in Springfield this week should leave their guns at home.
And any lawmaker who can’t be bothered to wear a mask should stay out of town.
‘You know, how Pritzker, the governor, said that worship was not essential, that’s what I read,” Jennifer Garcia said. “It really got to me.”
On Thursday, I sat at my laptop, making a virtual guest speaker appearance at National Louis University.
I had accepted the school’s kind invitation to share my expertise on the political, social and community issues I cover. The 73 students asked me questions via Zoom.
Jennifer Maria García, a 21-year-old junior majoring in business administration, had a wise inquiry. How can visiting your God, in-person, be considered “nonessential?”
I have been a staunch supporter of Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s “stay-athome” executive orders.
I have covered daily press conferences where, again and again, Pritzker and myriad experts explain the risks of “congregant settings,” ripe targets for the plague of COVID-19.
So, I prattled on to her about how Pritzker’s policies are aimed at keeping us safe and alive.
In Phase 2, non-essential businesses and institutions prohibit group gatherings of more than 10 people. Churches are “congregant” locations where people might gather in large numbers, creating unacceptable risks of passing on the deadly virus. The state restrictions are guided by science, data and the lessons of past pandemics. Blah, blah, blah.
That “non-essential” label “touched me,” Jennifer replied. “I’m religious, but not extremely religious. But I can imagine how a religious person felt when they heard that.”
No matter the depth of your faith, it should never called “nonessential.” It’s a cold, clinical adjective that comes from medicine and science. Worship comes from our hearts as a salve for our souls.
A salve for the faithful who flock to the churches, synagogues and mosques to find refuge, solace, hope and renewal.
Those who go to worship in a community — to connect to their spiritual advisers, to celebrate baptisms, bat mitzvahs, weddings, funerals — their communal experiences are spiritual lifelines that keep them connected to the human need to hold hands in prayer, shake hands in peace, lock arms in song. You cannot do that online. The term “non-essential” denies our existential need to gather for worship. It sends the message, intended or not, that God is on hold. That worship is expendable.
I could not explain to Jennifer why the state’s confusing web of rules provides that churches stay closed, yet every day, other places — less sacred places — can welcome visitors and commerce.
Willie Wilson has called on Pritzker to amend his stay-at-home order to recognize the places of worship as an “essential business.”
“The church is the foundation of our soul, people need hope in these challenging times, and the church offers that hope,” the prominent Chicago businessman and philanthropist said last week.
“If big box stores and grocery stores such as Pete’s, Target, Home Depot and Jewel have the right to welcome more than 10 customers, so do churches, as they, too, are ‘essential’ for our spiritual well-being.”
And liquor stores. We can make runs for beer and booze all day long. We can stir ourselves an icy martini and sip a pink cosmo.
Yet for Roman Catholics like me, a sip of sacred wine from a Communion chalice is off limits.
“I’m like, does this show that the government is not being fair?” Jennifer asked. “Are liquors more essential than worship?”
No, they are not. Jennifer, I wish to God I had a better answer.