Is coronavirus really that serious? Listen ye all, the casinos and churches are closed, so when hell and heaven agree on the same thing, then it must be dead serious.—Ramon Tulfo
Anyone who is “woke” appreciates modern society seeks to give religion the worst of connotations. Little or no good is seen in religion and no opportunity is missed to blame it for society’s woes, hence the reason I am writing this article.
In a bid to control the spread of the Covid-19 virus, President Buhari and governors in Nigeria, imposed mandatory lockdown, restricting social and religious gatherings, among other things. In his second address on April 13, the President said, “This is not a joke. It is a matter of life and death. Mosques in Makkah and Madina have been closed. The Pope celebrated Mass on an empty St Peter’s Square. The famous Notre Dame cathedral in Paris held Easter Mass with less than 10 people.” Consequently, if the headquarters of various religions are on lockdown, it is reasonable that our various religious houses should follow suit, indeed, we cannot be more Catholic than the Pope.
Religious worship is essential as Man is a religious being and gathering together to worship has spiritual, emotional and psychological implications for people of faith
In order to enforce the lockdown directive, the government delineated some services that were exempted from the lockdown and termed them as “essential”.
Even though the government did not expressly term any service “non-essential”. People found it particularly interesting that religious worship was not deemed essential, more so bearing in mind Nigerians’ religious nature.
For those with scrupulous consciences, they felt it was demeaning for religious worship to be pigeonholed into “non essential” services, they further argued that the lockdown on religious houses and worship violated the religious freedom of citizens.
On the other hand, some with atheistic, secularist and agnostic inclinations (of which I have many as good friends) found it particularly interesting that the “big” religious houses were shut down, they particularly liked the designation “non-essential”, indeed it gives bearing to their thought that rather than freedom of religion, society should advocate for freedom from religion.
Also, they sought to resurrect once again, the supposed incompatibility between faith and science. Indeed, within this period, there have been various memes, jokes, and articles across social media, highlighting how scientists are working round the clock to flatten the curve and find a vaccine, while religious leaders are helpless and useless, waiting also for the scientists to provide the solution. In conclusion, not only are the scientists supreme and more important, they are now the messiah.
As Nigeria considers relaxing restrictions on religious gatherings, it is best done in consultation with the religious leaders to avoid making arbitrary decisions. This dialogue should be geared at accommodating legitimate religious needs of people
As I have had to explain during this period, the Nigerian Constitution affirms the religious freedom of all, however, this right can be withdrawn, when public safety is involved. The lockdown directive is particularly hinged on public health and public safety, both interestingly are not just a concern for the state but also for any respectable institution, including religious ones. Indeed, when some state governments lifted the lockdown for their citizens to observe some religious festivities most religious leaders thanked the governors for the kind gesture and requested their members to continue worshiping remotely.
However, the government has not even infringed on people’s religious rights, it merely prevented us from temporarily worshiping together publicly. People are still exercising their religious right by worshiping from home and online.
If one sees it this way, we would agree that the government’s directive was innocuous and the sacrifice of not gathering temporarily for religious activities is indeed noble and necessary.
As for those that seek to revel in the closure of the religious houses and their designation as “non-essential”, it seems they began to celebrate too early. As it relates to Christianity, while we agree that the physical churches are closed, the Church, as it relates to a group of people is not closed or quarantined, the Gospel message is still operative, it’s so operative that apart from the online activities, many religious institutions have been involved in providing relief (both cash and food) to thousands of people. The Catholic Church even made available its hospitals across the country to the government, if the need arose, to help stem the tide of the virus. As regards the dissemination of information, religious leaders have also been effective in passing on the health and safety directives to their members, the few leaders who engaged in disinformation and weird conspiracy theories were promptly called out by other religious leaders.
Interestingly, many people of faith who see their work and faith as mutually reinforcing, are also frontline workers and are also involved in getting a vaccine. Consequently, the alleged incompatibility of faith and science, or the indolence of believers, is unfounded.
Not only are places of worship closed, schools, the bedrock of learning and science, are shut too. So the designation as “non-essential” should not be taken literally.
While we admit the authority of the government to prescribe lockdown directives, we also have to be alert to distinguish between a legitimate government decision and anti-religious actions. Indeed hostility and disgust towards religion should not be disguised under the toga of public health. Even as sacrifices are made during this pandemic, people of faith have to be vigilant to protect their religious freedom.
This concern is not particular to Nigeria. Around the world, governments of the most developed, technologically sophisticated, and secularised societies, evaluate whether their Covid-19 lockdown directives are a wilful persecution or good precaution as it relates to religious institutions.
In an attempt to further justify the lockdown of religious houses, reference is also made to the various religious leaders or church attendees who have either died or have been infected by the virus. The case of patient 31 is a classic example. Patient 31, is a South Korean lady who attends Shincheonji Church, she is credited with spreading the virus to hundreds of people in her church.
Almost anyone you talk to about the opening of the physical religious houses talks about Patient 31. It gives the impression that it’s only people of faith that are super spreaders, that is the cause of contagions. Ironically, they fail to mention other non-religious super spreaders.
Few people mention the “biological bomb” in Italy, according to Mayor of Bergamo, Giorgio Gori, the massive spread of coronavirus in Italy and Spain is believed to be connected to the Champions League match played on February 19 in Milan between Atalanta and Valencia. The stadium had about over 44,000 fans. Similarly, less known is the demonstrations in Spain on International Women’s Day on March 8 to support gender equality, which attracted over 120,000 was also instrumental to the spread of the virus. And the list can go one.
Even now, amidst the protests supposedly in honour of George Floyd, many of those participating aren’t even wearing masks or observing social distancing and the heavens haven’t fallen. If a religious institution had engaged in something similar, they would have been called anti-science and indifferent to the public good.
Even the media is complicit in this onslaught. Two weeks ago in Kenya, a headline read “Positive after Prayers” referring to a female Bishop who tested positive to Covid-19.
In Nigeria, an editorial in the Punch on May 26, titled “Lifting ban on religious gatherings impulsive”, stated that reopening economic activities and the welfare of the citizens should take precedence over religion because it is not the lifeblood of a country.
As Nigeria considers relaxing restrictions on religious gatherings, it is best done in consultation with the religious leaders to avoid making arbitrary decisions. This dialogue should be geared at accommodating legitimate religious needs of people. The one-size-fits-all directive/template as some countries are proposing is really unreasonable.
Indeed this is not a case of religious institutions seeking a special privilege or priority; they are asking to be treated like other non-religious institutions, moreso, when markets, malls, banks have been allowed to operate for weeks . One wonders why the government trusts people to maintain the safety and healthy guidelines in non-religious gatherings but doesn’t trust them to keep to the same rules in their various places of worship.
I think Nigeria can take a cue from France. France’s Supreme Court ruled that the government’s absolute ban on religious gatherings in hopes of stopping the spread of COVID-19 is unlawful, and “constitutes a serious and manifest violation of the freedom of worship”, and ordered the government to relax restrictions on religious worship. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that “the general and absolute prohibition of religious gatherings is disproportionate to the objective of preserving public health” when the government has allowed gatherings of fewer than 10 people for secular instances.
As US Supreme Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, “The State cannot assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings”.
Despite any classification, religious worship is essential as Man is a religious being and gathering together to worship has spiritual, emotional and psychological implications for people of faith.
Joshua Nwachukwu, a legal practitioner, writes from Lagos
He can be reached at nwachukwujo@gmail.com
