I retweeted this before, but want to add some additional thoughts.
(Thread) https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/1246350531297042433

Point 1: As someone who believes in bodily autonomy, I believe that people generally have the freedom to use, care for, or neglect their bodies as they wish: how healthy they eat, how much exercise they get; whether they get various body modifications (tattoos, piercings, etc) 2/

If person A’s decision to gather with others in groups put A (and *only* A) at risk for becoming infected with the virus, I wouldn’t consider A’s behavior something that needed to be regulated by the state. 3/

According to medical experts, however, the novel Coronavirus isn’t like that. One can be infected with the virus without having symptoms, while spreading the virus to others. And as the health care system gets overwhelmed, that affects non-COVID19 patients also. 4/

So there’s a trade off between the right to bodily autonomy and how exercising that right may put others at risk. Not sure how I would draw the line, but such a line exists. 5/

Point #2: I take the 1st amendment to the US Constitution seriously. Dawkins is British, but I’m American. The 1st amendment clearly protects the rights of Americans to freely exercise their religion. Church gatherings, worship services, etc. clearly are included in that.
6/

Just as the freedom of speech (also enshrined in the 1st amendment) is not absolute — you can’t yell “fire!” in a crowded theater — it’s not clear to me why the freedom of religious exercise is absolute. 7/

In the case of the pandemic and governmental prohibitions on wedding, funerals, worship services, the question I’d ask is whether religious rights are being singled out. 8/

One factor is government consistency in its approach to large gatherings of people, including religious services but not just religious services. If governments were allowing large social groups except for those rigorous in nature, that would be a giant problem. 9/

That isn’t happening, however, so I don’t think religion is being singled out — at least in that way. Another factor is the notion of “essential” services. Where I live (WA state), the Governor has ordered non-essential businesses closed. /10

If the Governor were banning church gatherings but not banning non-essential services, that would be clearly unconstitutional. But, again, that isn’t what’s happening. 11/

A more interesting question, I think, is whether the free exercise of religion counts as an “essential” service. Even as an atheist, I wouldn’t claim that the free exercise of religion is not “essential.” It clearly plays an enormous role in many people’s lives. 12/

Of course, the ability to earn an income also plays an enormous role in people’s lives and yet the Governor, like many political leaders, has interfered with that. But jobs aren’t protected by the 1st amendment the way religion is. 13/

There are a lot of interesting questions here, such as whether attending a religious gathering is necessary for the free exercise of religion. I don’t take a position on that myself. 14/

Point #3: empathy goes a long way.

Just as I’ve tried to recognize the constitutional issue here from the perspective of a believer who engages in civil disobedience and attends a church service anyway, it would be a lot easier to empathize with such believers if

15/

they would acknowledge that their behavior is putting others at risk, without their consent. Sadly, believers like the woman in the video tweeted by Dawkins, don’t seem to be doing that.
16/