Dangerous to prey on the faithful for votes
The minute President Cyril Ramaphosa announced that places of worship would be allowed to open and hold services, the almost nine-week Covid-19 lockdown came, in effect, to an end.
Many questions have been raised about the rationale behind the decision and the justification for continued bans on other activities and sectors. When rationality goes out of the window, so does compliance.
The lockdown regulations prohibited all large gatherings such as sports events, conferences and religious services, which evidently are places where the spread of the coronavirus is most likely.
However, on Tuesday night, after a meeting with religious leaders last week, Ramaphosa announced that places of worship would be exempted when the country moves to level 3 on June 1. Religious services will be allowed to go ahead as long as they include no more than 50 people.
The president said the national coronavirus command council had discussed the proposals and determined that it should adopt them in accordance with certain norms and standards. He said the government understood what effect the closure of places of worship had on members of faith communities, and that it worsens their distress.
This is not a good enough explanation for acceding to the calls from religious leaders. What happened to making decisions based on scientific evidence? The same justification could be cited by those who have not been allowed to see family members or friends in more than two months, yet are still prohibited from going on social visits.
It seems science has been thrown out of the window on this one, because there is clear evidence of a high risk of infection during gatherings such as church services. We have seen numerous examples around the world and in SA: one of the main catalysts for the spread of the virus in the Free State was a church gathering early on in Bloemfontein.
The announcement on places of worship comes as lockdown compliance by citizens is waning, and SA has not even reached the projected peak of infections, still about two months away. One can only imagine what compliance levels will look like if citizen buy-in totally tanks. While it is too soon to know, we can assume it won’t be pretty.
Objections to gatherings in a place of worship are not about religion. Being part of a community is also about keeping safe other members of that community and the rest of the country, which was the aim of lockdown in the first place.
Some places of worship will be able to implement health protocols, but some also don’t have the money or the will to do so. Is the government going to police every religious gathering?
Some religious bodies have realised that the wellbeing of their congregations is more important than gathering them, and despite the decision by the government will not be holding services. The Jesuit Institute SA made a good point about the government’s decision: “There is a logic behind saying that if we open up businesses, churches should follow. But there is a difference between opening up for economic survival, particularly as people start to starve, and opening institutions that could function differently in these times. In ethical situations where there are no good options, an ethical response should err on the side of caution. Sadly, we do not believe this does.”
The Zion Christian Church has said it will remain closed during level 3, and the Jewish Board of Deputies has also come out strongly against the decision after a meeting on Wednesday. It quoted one of its advisers, Prof Barry Schoub, founder and former director of the National Institute For Communicable Diseases, as saying: “The reopening of shuls at this stage of the Covid epidemic in SA would pose a very serious threat to the Jewish community.”
You cannot blame the restaurant industry and hair salons, among others, for crying foul. Desperate pleas from these businesses, which are struggling to stay alive, have fallen on deaf ears. These are businesses that contribute to national revenue — and pay taxes.
It is obvious that the religious sector has stronger lobbying power than some of those businesses that are still shut out of level 3, including the powerful tobacco sector.
There has always been a strong link between politics and religion: we see it in the run-up to elections, when political leaders take to the pulpit during religious services to address potential voters, promising they will stay in power until Jesus comes.
It is also telling that opposition parties, many of which have been outspoken and vocal about certain regulations, have been quiet on this issue.
We are on a slippery slope. The government will no longer be able to pretend that its decisions are based on science and fact. It now seems to be about who is better at lobbying, and no longer about the right thing to do to curb the spread of Covid-19.
The question then becomes: why should anyone adhere to rules if the lockdown has lost all rationality? The answer is becoming increasingly difficult to provide.
WE ARE ON A SLIPPERY SLOPE. THE GOVERNMENT WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO PRETEND THAT ITS DECISIONS ARE BASED ON SCIENCE