Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

County Health Officer will consider following state guidelines for churches, Supervisors don’t have authority to overrule him

By 4 Comments

Screenshot of Board of Supervisors’ May 28, 2020 COVID-19 Ad Hoc Committee meeting using Zoom. Brentwood Vice Mayor Joel Bryant (upper right) speaks as Supervisor Karen Mitchoff (bottom left) and Michelle and Ric Campos listen.

Spiritual counseling is allowed in county, church services still aren’t; waiting for update next Tuesday to determine new orders

By Allen Payton

During the meeting of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors’ Ad Hoc Committee on COVID-19 Economic Impact and Recovery on Thursday, May 28, 2020, Board Chair Candace Andersen, Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, and County Health Officer Dr. Chris Farnitano heard from frustrated county residents on reopening the county. According to the agenda, the meeting was to “Consider the impacts of COVID-19 on religious gatherings and discuss pathways that may allow them to resume, if possible, within the limitations established by” Farnitano.

General Public Comments

A variety of residents spoke during public comments on issues not on the agenda

“Take back control from the Contra Costa County health officer and move on to Phase 3,” said Gertrud Jeffries.

Brentwood Vice Mayor Joel Bryant said he was, “asking our Supervisors of the Board to tell the county health officer to follow the governor in the guidelines.”

A woman who identified herself as “They Call Me Non-Esssential” spoke about the information provided by a doctor at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek about more suicides than COVID-19 deaths in the county. “Dr. Farnitano said he hadn’t seen that data,” she said.

Robert Jackson, owner and CEO of Proforma Health Club in Walnut Creek, asked for guidance for health clubs that have a large outdoor area, and “more clarity on timeliness for reopening…after the expiration.”

Ric Campos of Campos Family Vineyards in Byron said, “We’re very involved in our community…hosting fundraising events and we have a tasting room. We can meet all the protocols. We submitted them to the supervisors. We also have a church that meets here, on Sundays. These numbers just don’t add up.”

“I understand Dr. Farnitano has a job to do. But he’s focusing on the medical. I’m asking our supervisors to look at the big picture, because this virus is hurting our businesses,” Campos continued. “Only 37 have died, which is horrible. But most of them are over 80 and 90 years old and others are over 70 years old. I’m asking our supervisors to step up. You have the authority to override the doctor. Something has to be done. It’s getting bad. So, please…”

“…help this community we’ve elected you to oversee,” said Michelle Campos, concluding her husband’s remarks.

Patricia McBroom spoke of “a community pool we can accommodate small groups. I would like the county to follow the CDC guidelines on small housing…for them to schedule their own uses. It doesn’t make sense to have one category.”

Tricia Wilkalis said, “I want to talk about these small businesses, I’d rather shop at them than the large retailers. I think they’re more safe.” She then spoke of mental health and a young man who attempted suicide. “I want you to reevaluate this lockdown and what it’s doing to our citizens.”

“There are exceptions to wearing masks,” said Supervisor Candace Andersen.

Dr. Farnitano said, “About wearing masks, this is about changing science and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control. Most transmissions are from people without symptoms. Universal face coverings have a big effect on limiting the spread. People with medical conditions where wearing masks restrict their breathing, we need to let business owners know not to interfere with them not wearing masks.”

A question about dance, gymnastics and camps was asked.

“Where do you see dance classes coming in from the state order?” asked Andersen.

“The state has not provided guidance on that, yet. Our current order allows outdoor activities that allow for six feet apart, like Tai Chi classes,” Dr. Farnitano said. “I haven’t seen any differentiation, yet.”

He was then asked by Andersen about suicides, and that “the shelter in place does cause a huge emotional strain.”

“When we see recessions in general, that causes physical stress that leads to mental stress,” Dr. Farnitano said. “The shelter-in-place is causing a tremendous amount of stress. Looking across the county we’re not seeing a change in suicides. We’re reaching out to the hospitals to gather the data. It is a concern.”

Andersen encouraged people to dial 2-11 for crisis intervention or health services, for counseling and for help.

“This issue has been dominant in our calls between supervisors and health staff,” said Supervisor Karen Mitchoff. “Our sheriff will be gathering 24 months of data. There have been additional numbers of suicide in the count. But he’s not seeing a trend there. We don’t have that data, today.”

Andersen asked about outdoor dining, tasting rooms. When do you anticipate…where do you see that falling in, Chris?”

“Seated dining as opposed to take-out is in the state’s Phase 3. The state’s order doesn’t allow that anywhere in the state, yet,” Dr. Farnitano said. “A lot of health officers are talking about outdoor dining, first, because of the air flows and the spacing. It’s probably coming and the state’s going to be coming up with guidance on that.”

“We’re almost at two weeks next Tuesday since the last loosening of restrictions. What will the new order include…so businesses can prepare,” Andersen.

“We are working with the Bay Area. We are one human ecosystem…because a lot of people shop and work among the counties,” Dr. Farnitano explained. He then spoke of “expanding childcare to all folks not just those who are working, but people who are seeking childcare. We are looking at some services that don’t require close customer contact, like house cleaning, car washes, outdoor museums. But the higher risk, like the indoor retail…when to address the religious gatherings, which we know are high risk…there’s a large desire for that. The state just came out with guidance on those in the last few days.”

“We can’t make decisions without data and we need at least two weeks of data to see where the trends are heading,” he continued. “We are looking at next Tuesday, and if the data shows we aren’t looking at a new surge, then we will consider more opening.”

“Will we know before Tuesday so businesses can prepare?” Andersen asked.

Shelter-In-Place Order Doesn’t Expire on May 31st

“The current order expires May 31st” said Mitchoff.

“No, the current order doesn’t expire. It was extended indefinitely,” Dr. Farnitano responded. “Until we get two weeks of data which is Tuesday. We could put out something on Monday that this may be coming. When you put out an order, there is some lag time for it going into effect.”

Asked about a community pool with a small number of houses using the pool, maybe people can sign up with this household using the pool from 9:00 to 9:30 a.m., etc.?” Andersen.

“The state order does not allow for them. The local order cannot be more loose than the state. But I can look into guidance from the state,” Dr. Farnitano replied.

Asked about opening up playgrounds, he replied, “The two concerns about playgrounds are transmission from surfaces, which are difficult to be wiped down between uses and the closeness of those who gather. These prohibitions may be looked at in the future.”

Supervisors Don’t Have Authority to Override Health Officer

“We were asked about the authority to override the county health officer,” Mitchoff stated. “We do not have the authority to override a health officer according to state law. We have repeatedly check with legal authorities. You can imagine that when there is a public health issue you don’t want politicians interfering with that.”

Asked about housecleaners returning to work in Contra Costa County

“That is something we do have consensus on…and those services that don’t have close contact between the customer and the service provider. “Piano tuners would fall in with that, as well,” Dr. Farnitano replied.

Asked about football teams practicing and preparing for the fall season he said, “There is a lot of outdoor…conditioning that doesn’t require a lot of contact. Throwing back and forth of a football between two people, like throwing a baseball or playing tennis…those are the kinds of things you can stay far apart. Those are the kinds of things that are allowed. There are a lot of…conditioning things you can do.

Religious Gatherings

Andersen then steered the meeting toward the main topic of focus, religious gatherings.

“If we can’t go to the full 100 like the governor’s order…there may be some ways we can allow people to meet in person for worship services,” said Andersen.

Shawna Garvin spoke first during public comments on the item, said she attends “Golden Hills Community Church, a large church, 100 people, I don’t know how we would make that work. But I do know one way we could make it work, small groups. A consistent group of people, four to six people, ours is 14 to 16 people in our group. We are not supposed to be apart and separated in our faith.”

“Hebrews 10:24 and 25 reads ‘we should not make it a habit not to meet together’. This is a command,” she continued. “How can we meet in small groups? Sitting six to 10 feet apart. I’m not going to have my freedoms totally stretched.”

Wendi a member of Community Presbyterian Church in Danville said, “I’m totally in line with not opening churches. But I’m totally in line with what Shawna said about small groups.”

“Personally, I’m dying inside, not just spiritually,” she continued. “This goes for me as a Christian, but this goes way beyond this…about community…waiting for county orders to allow small groups. As if the county health officer can’t decide. He’s the one who decides. We’re stricter than the state.”

Chuck said, “our church has a capacity of 1,200. Why would we have to have seat coverings when restaurants don’t? The 100-person limit, frankly is arbitrary. What I’ve seen is people are starting to disregard rules, period. When you don’t have rules that make sense…that’s more dangerous. You need to relax the rules, now.”

A Mr. Cottle said, “Last Sunday I was in Sacramento and ate inside a BJ’s. It was nice. In addition to being a scientist that deals with infectious disease in healthcare…54% of churches have less than 100 people who attend on a Sunday. I’m privileged to pastor a small church…we seat 177. We could seat 35 people easy with social distance.”

“Back on the 11th you opened up a small group gathering for a graduation event,” he continued. “Allowing one and not allowing the other is a constitutional violation.” Cottle then called for “opening up churches along the state guidelines immediately.”

A member of St. Agnews Church in Concord said they have about 125 who attend their services. “When we put a 100-person limit would we have a problem if those extra 25 people sit outside and listen to the service, while social distancing? I challenge you to show data where people sitting six-feet apart outdoors is a problem from a healthcare perspective.”

“I’m really urging our supervisors to encourage, as well as Dr. Farnitano to really look at this, again,” said Joel Bryant. “As an elected official I feel personally responsible for everyone in my community.”

He then spoke of the need for counseling for those in need. “I encourage opening up and at least match the state…to eliminate some of these tragedies that are being brought on because of the COVID-19 situation.”

Jared Thompson, pastor of a Christian church in Walnut Creek said he was, “Asking what is permitted for me as a pastor. I have people suffering from depression in my congregation. I was told to try to deal with it virtually. We’re a church without a permanent facility. We rent Valle Verde Elementary. As soon as all this went down our services were cancelled.”

He referred to “outdoor fitness where people are six feet apart, I’ve even heard that singing is a deterrent. If a community group can be six feet apart, why can’t a small church meet outdoors? I wish there were more clarity. There are other churches that meet at schools and none of us know what we can do. And the disparity. We’ve been praying for you all as you make these decisions.”

A woman named Barbara said, “I’m from North Creek Church, but I’m not representing them. I’m a counselor there. We have 50 counselors. We’ve seen an increase in counselees…that have a lot of issues that are going on. I’ve been Zooming for 10 weeks, now, two-and-a-half to three hours. Zooming is not enough. You can’t read body language. When you have 0.11% of Contra Costa County that has been affected by COVID this really doesn’t make sense. Mental health is a big thing we deal with…we’re just ignoring that aspect. Also, let our pastors shepherd their flock and let them be responsible.”

Michelle Campos then said, “Doctor, I would like to challenge you. Suicides, violence, child molestation, these are things happening in Contra Costa County because you are keeping us locked down and that goes against how our Father has designed us. I’m not understanding why liquor stores, smoke shops, abortion clinics are deemed essential, but our churches…are not essential.”

“We’ve done our part Zooming for 10-12 weeks,” she continued. “We were not designed to live on science and data. I implore our supervisors to do something.”

“37 deaths, come one,” said her husband Ric Campos. “Doctor, please look at the big picture, not just the science and data. This is killing our society. I’m seeing him (Farnitano) do videos and 99% of the people are asking you to reopen and you just ignore us.”

Michael Weisman spoke of suicides in Contra Costa County and referred to a Bay Area TV news report in which the John Muir doctors presented the information. “Why would two doctors…lie?” he asked.

Weisman then spoke of the statistics from a couple months ago that showed, “3.4% of those who have died. The latest CDC statistics show 10% of that. I believe it is now time for the health official to reconsider his position. The supervisors should make a change in that position. The health officer doesn’t seem to care about our faith.”

Kent Dresdow, Senior Pastor at North Creek Church asked about their 1,200-person sanctuary. “To have a 100-person limit is pretty restrictive for us,” he said. “We want to follow our authorities. We are people waiting on both sides. We can meet with 25% capacity. Not the 100-person or less.”

“Would it allow for us to meet 100 people at different spaces on campus at the same time?” Dresdow asked. “My main concern is to be in compliance and super safe. Other churches…will have the same questions. Larger churches will.”

Igor Skaredoff said, “One of the reasons we have such low numbers of deaths…is because we have been practicing good social distances. But, listening to all these comments…I really commend your guidelines in a step by step fashion. The coronavirus takes two weeks to show up. If you continue to operate the same way…we can get there without losing too many people.”

A man named Stan said, “I hear a complete lack of flexibility in enforcing the rules. I don’t know if Dr. Farnitano can be more strict, or more relaxed. Do you have discretion? Whose interests do you have in mind? What I’m hearing ii your complete lack of flexibility…it’s big brother in Sacramento. To the pastor who wants to have an outdoor service, tell them you’re going to have an outdoor workout.”

Robert said “A lot of what you’re hearing is fairness. Fairness is really, really difficult to see in this. If we’re going to open up churches to 100 people, why are we all suffering so much and ruining our businesses? It’s like why can’t I go exercise at my health club but I can go to McDonald’s. It doesn’t make sense.”

Denise Porchia from Clayton said, “Karen you are my servant, government supervisor.”

“Uh, huh,” responded Mitchoff.

“We the people believe that God is the Creator of as us acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence” which she then read. “Let’s not forget we the people are creators of government…we demand our servant government…of the jealously guarding of our unalienable rights.”

A woman named Karen then said, “We remind you of the oath that you have…sworn when you became our public servants,” and then read the oath of office all elected officials take in California. The Constitution of the U.S. is the supreme law of the land…for every level of government.” She then quoted Alexander Hamilton from Federalist 78.

Paul Taylor then said, “The Supreme Court of the United States…that no law is contrary to the Constitution is valid. Our state is ruling outside of its control. Government is servant to the people not the master. Servant is not authorized to force the people to wear masks…to stay at home…to close their businesses. It does not matter if the servant believes such mandates will keep the people safe or that most people want it. Let us never forget that the Constitution guarantees to each state a Republican form of government where the rights are supreme.”

Michelle O’Connor asked, “Do you know if the de facto orders upon the people are legal? Or do you rely on the advice of the people. If you don’t know the supreme law how do you know if you’re violating them? Do you know what the penalty is for violating them? There is not immunity for acting against the contract. You will be held accountable.”

Scott Bennett a former U.S. Army Officer said he was notifying the supervisors of violating the rights of the people.

“They shall be fined…and imprisoned no more than 10 years” he stated. “I hereby give legal notice…if an rights or any citizens of the United States of wearing a mask, or taking a vaccine…you will be criminally prosecuted and civilly prosecuted. You have been notified.”

Supervisors Respond, Mitchoff Defends Herself

The two supervisors then took up the matter.

Mitchoff spoke first saying, “Candace as a matter of protocol, we have another Zoom meeting at 3:00 p.m. We have to leave ample time for remarks…” from her, Andersen and Dr. Farnitano.

“Some of the questions put to Chris are directed at us,” said Mitchoff. “I found some of the comments to be personal attacks on Dr. Farnitano, which I find to be inappropriate. He has no personal stake in this order. He is using his best medical and scientific background in coordination with other Bay Area health officers. Personal attacks are inappropriate.”

“People who are either for or against an issue appear to be in the majority because they’re engaged, when people speak to it, it appears more or for or against it,” she continued. “We are a representative government, not servant government. We can’t just listen to the loudest voices in the room. Someone said…he was ignoring their pleas. That’s not true.”

“What we have told Dr. Farnitano is to be more consistent with the state,” Mitchoff said. “I’m a faith-oriented person. I know Candace is and the rest of our board is. We are sharing the same concerns you are. So, we understand the issue. I’d love for any of you to take my place and to have any other issue. I’m very aware of what the Constitution says, and I’d be more than happy to be put under scrutiny that I’ve followed the laws of the state of California.”

“There are five indicators issued by the state of California. We don’t even meet three of them,” she said. “Relative to church services…I know it’s hard. My church probably holds 400 people. The smaller number would be the 25% of square footage. We can talk to our health officer about different types of church services. I’m looking at a variety of churches that have a number of different buildings. Church services can be staggered. I feel I must do what is best for everyone in this county.”

“We can have our faith-based communities come together sooner rather than later,” said Supervisor Andersen.

Dr. Farnitano Responds

“I want to thank everyone who has offered me their prayers,” said Dr. Farnitano. “We have passed two key milestones in the last day or so. There have been over 100,000 deaths in the U.S. We have only had 37 deaths in our county…that is because our community has followed the guidelines. If we had the same statistics as the country, we would have had over 300 deaths. We know that Contra Costa County is older than the U.S. and we know that age is a factor in the mortality rate. The other milestone is 100,000 cases in California. The Bay Area put the shelter-in-place order sooner. It has opened up step by step but slower than the state. If we had the same rate of cases as the State of California, we would have had double the cases.”

“Contra Costa County is a more dense county than a lot of the state,” he continued. “We have to look at the deaths that have occurred but also those we have prevented.”

“Worship is really important to me, too,” Dr. Farnitano said. “My church has been doing Zoom services for several weeks, now and I understand it’s not the same. One issue is around spiritual counseling…it’s part of mental health. Spiritual counseling is allowed. I want to make sure our FAQ’s are clear and include that.”

As for churches holding services, again he said, “There’s a lot of science that outdoor meetings are less of a risk. Indoor meetings are more of a risk. There was an outbreak in Mendocino County because of a church service. We can look at following the state guidelines in allowing church services.”

“We have a data team looking at data state by state, what’s leading one state without a surge, are they opening up completely or in stages, has there not been enough time, or testing,” Dr. Farnitano explained. “We’re trying to learn from that. We tried to learn from China’s and Asia’s experience, Europe’s experience, and now the other states’ experiences.”

“Each area is unique. Contra Costa County has unique industries…density,” he stated. “We are also looking across the Bay Area at some surges. In Alameda County we are starting to see a surge in hospitals to the levels in March.”

Dr. Farnitano mentioned patients being transferred from a hospital in Richmond to one in Alameda County. “Some of those hospital numbers in Alameda County are residents of Contra Costa County,” he added.

“These decisions are mine…but I’m not looking at them in a vacuum,” Dr. Farnitano stated. “I’m taking input from meetings such as this. I have several deputy health officers. I take input from the Board of Supervisors…also hearing from businesses. Also talking with other health officers across the Bay Area and at the state.”

“We want to open safely and not have another surge,” he said.

“We want to open as soon as we can,” Andersen said. “We won’t get back to normal. We are hearing from several of you about opening up. We are close to families getting back together.”

“We really are looking at with the state these expanded bubbles…small support groups in the church, having a more expanded group, your extended family, your small groups. We are looking at ways to have that happening,” Dr. Farnitano concluded.

“I do believe we will have more information from the state on their order. Maybe half of the agenda (for next week’s Ad Hoc Committee meeting) can be devoted to the new order that will be coming out,” said Mitchoff. “I do want to address dance and other recreation. I’d like to talk about restaurants. But I don’t think we’re there. I’d like to start with businesses with the least amount of impact.”

With that, Supervisor Andersen concluded the meeting.

Payton Perspective: Gov. Newsom isn’t really allowing places of worship to reopen, his guidelines are too restrictive

By 2 Comments

Some churches to participate in civil disobedience this Sunday and open for services.

“Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights”… “the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship” – 5/19/20 US DOJ letter to Gov. Newsom.

By Allen Payton

Yesterday, Monday, May 25, 2020 – Memorial Day, the day we honor and commemorate those who died for our freedoms, some of which are seriously limited, right now – California Governor Gavin Newsom issued guidelines for reopening places of worship. At first, I was hopeful that he was doing something good in response to President Trump’s directive to all the governors and the directive to California from U.S. Attorney General William Barr and the Department of Justice, last week.

But the guidelines don’t really allow most places of worship to reopen. Why? Because they’re too restrictive, limiting attendance to just 25% of building capacity or 100 people whichever is less. Plus, Newsom is leaving it up to each unelected county health officer to approve of the guidelines or not.

Now, it’s worse because they’re allowing more and more businesses to reopen – which is great – but not the churches. Our officials already considered all the vice serving businesses, including all the locations of the nation’s top abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, liquor stores, and marijuana dispensaries essential. But not the churches or other places of worship. And as of today, the governor said barber shops and hair salons can reopen.

Which part of “shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise” of religion and the other First Amendment right of freedom of peaceful assembly, don’t our officials get?

Civil Disobedience

Following in the footsteps of the black Christian ministers who led the efforts during the civil rights movement, it appears some churches will be participating in some civil disobedience with the ministers leading the effort for their rights, when they hold services this next Sunday, May 31st in defiance of state and local orders. Those in attendance will probably only be issued citations and the maximum fine is $1,000, which they can collectively fight. Plus, with $0 bail, right now none of them will go to jail. Most likely only the ministers will be cited and fined. But who knows? The Lord does and we will see just how far the government officials will take this and just how much they want to continue this fight.

Time to Elect New Leaders

It’s definitely time we elected only those who agree that places of worship are essential, not only to those who attend, but society as a whole, and will actually uphold their oaths of office, in which they swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Event the CDC recognized that in the statement for its Interim Guidance for Communities of Faith, unlike our governor in the statement included with his guidelines. The CDC wrote, “Millions of Americans embrace worship as an essential part of life. In addition, we note that while many types of gatherings are important for civic and economic well-being, religious worship has particularly profound significance to communities and individuals, including as a right protected by the First Amendment. State and local authorities are reminded to take this vital right into account when establishing their own re-opening plans.”

What did the governor include in the statement about his guidelines? Just more warnings about how public gatherings can cause more deaths. That statement includes, “There have been multiple outbreaks in a range of workplaces, indicating that workers are at risk of acquiring or transmitting COVID-19 infection. Examples of these workplaces include places of worship, long-term care facilities, prisons, food production, warehouses, meat processing plants, and grocery stores.”

“Further, it is strongly recommended that places of worship continue to facilitate remote services and other related activities for those who are vulnerable to COVID19 including older adults and those with co-morbidities. Even with adherence to physical distancing, convening in a congregational setting of multiple different households to practice a personal faith carries a relatively higher risk for widespread transmission of the COVID-19 virus, and may result in increased rates of infection, hospitalization, and death, especially among more vulnerable populations. In particular, activities such as singing and group recitation negate the risk-reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing,” Newsom’s statement continues.

Nothing about our First Amendment rights which should be protected or that corporate worship or even churches being essential to at least some Californians or society as a whole.

Support Legal Efforts

We also need to support the legal efforts of those suing the state and governor to get the courts to force him to allow the churches to reopen. One way you can do that is by supporting the Center for American Liberty, based in San Francisco and led by my friend, attorney Harmeet Dhillon and her fellow attorney, Mark Meuser, a former Contra Costa resident. Read about their cases and make a contribution, here – https://libertycenter.org/pf/covid-19-litigation/.

Another lawsuit by churches in California against Newsom and the state, which was joined by Dhillon, lost last week at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2-1 decision of a three-judge panel. Not surprising the judges who voted with the governor were appointed by Clinton and Obama, and the one judge that voted with the churches was appointed by Trump.

“These are emergency appeals,” Dhillon explained on Monday. “We filed for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court” in the recent case before the 9th Circuit.

“The DOJ sent a letter to the governor that his policies were discriminatory against churches,” she continued. “Today’s guidelines are still limiting. They’re totally arbitrary. There is no limit of 100 people for any retail establishment. Retail has a 50% capacity limit for some and none for others.”

“To tell people how they can worship, this is more unconstitutional and very problematic,” Dhillon added.

DOJ Letter to Newsom

In the DOJ letter to Newsom about “several civil rights concerns with the treatment of places of worship” due to the governor’s stay-at-home order, as well as “documents relating to the California Reopening Plan” it states “Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.” USDOJ 5.19.20 Ltr. to Hon. Gavin Newson

“Laws that do not treat religious activities equally with comparable nonreligious activities are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,” the letter continues.

“Places of worship are not permitted to hold religious worship services until Stage 3” of Newsom’s reopening plan, the letter explains. “However, in Stage 2, schools, restaurants, factories, offices, shopping malls, swap meets and others are permitted to operate with social distancing. And as noted, ecommerce and entertainment industry activities are already permitted with social distancing. This constitutes precisely the kind of differential treatment the Supreme Court identified” in the decision of another case “in which the government is not willing to impose on certain activities the same restrictions it is willing to impose on constitutionally protected religious worship.”

“Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other nonreligious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest…” the letter states.

It then refers to the recent case before the 9th Circuit and states, “Other decisions around the country…make clear that reopening plans cannot unfairly burden religious services as California has done.”

“We believe…that the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship, including in Stage 2 of the Reopening Plan.”

An email has been sent to the DOJ asking for their views on Newsom’s guidelines and if they comply with the May 19th letter. (Please check back later for updates to this column.)

Time for Action

It’s time for action and to stop living in fear, my friends. The governor’s guidelines are too restrictive and continue to clearly violate our God-given – the meaning of “unalienable” – and constitutionally protected rights of both freedom of religion and assembly. Until Newsom complies with the directives from the federal government, churches should feel free to reopen within the guidelines applied to nonreligious activities and businesses.

As the DOJ letter states, “Religious communities have rallied to protect their communities from the spread of this disease by making services available online, in parking lots, or outdoors, by indoor services with a majority of pews empty, and in numerous other creative ways that otherwise comply with social distancing and sanitation guidelines.” Local churches can do the same. We shall see if any actions are taken against the ministers and those who attend this Sunday’s services.

DOJ Letter to Governor Newsom

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Office of the Assistant Attorney General                                               Washington, D.C. 20530

May 19, 2020

 

The Honorable Gavin Newsom

Governor of California

1303 10th Street, Suite 1173

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor Newsom:

We are writing to you to raise several civil rights concerns with the treatment of places of worship in Executive Orders N-33-20 and N-60-20 and documents relating to the California Reopening Plan.

Of course, we recognize the duty that you have to protect the health and safety of Californians in the face of a pandemic that is unprecedented in our lifetimes. You and other leaders around the country are called on to balance multiple competing interests and evaluate the constantly changing information available to you about COVID-19, and make your best judgment on courses of action.

Attorney General William P. Barr recently issued a statement on Religious Practice and Social Distancing, in conjunction with a Mississippi case in which the Department of Justice participated regarding restrictions on worship. In the statement, the Attorney General emphasized the need to practice social distancing to control the spread of COVID-19. He also noted that temporary restrictions that would be unacceptable in normal circumstances may be justified. But, “even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers. Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity.” Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Laws that do not treat religious activities equally with comparable nonreligious activities are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). Laws that are not both neutral toward religion and generally applicable are invalid unless the government can prove that they further a compelling interest and are pursued through the least restrictive means possible. Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other nonreligious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest, absent the most compelling reasons.

Executive Order N-33-20 (March 19, 2020) ordered Californians to remain at home except to engage in authorized necessary activities as laid out by the Public Health Officer at the time and as modified going forward. The Public Health Officer’s April 28 “essential workforce” list does not appear to treat religious activities and comparable nonreligious activities the same.

The list includes “faith-based services” but only if “provided through streaming or other technologies.” In-person religious services are thus apparently prohibited even if they adhere to social distancing standards.

The list of nonreligious workers who are not so restricted by the Executive Order and essential workforce list when telework “is not practical” is expansive. For example, the list includes “Workers supporting the entertainment industries, studios, and other related establishments, provided they follow covid-19 public health guidance around social distancing.” Likewise, “workers supporting ecommerce” are included as essential, regardless of whether the product they are selling and shipping are life-preserving products or not. This facially discriminates against religious exercise. California has not shown why interactions in offices and studios of the entertainment industry, and in-person operations to facilitate nonessential ecommerce, are included on the list as being allowed with social distancing where telework is not practical, while gatherings with social distancing for purposes of religious worship are forbidden, regardless of whether remote worship is practical or not.

Even more pronounced unequal treatment of faith communities is evident in California’s Reopening Plan, as set forth in Executive Order N-60-20 (May 4, 2020), and in the documents the California Department of Public Health produced pursuant to it, including the “Resilience Roadmap” (https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap/) and “County Variance Attestations” (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Local-Variance-Attestations.aspx). Places of worship are not permitted to hold religious worship services until Stage 3. However, in Stage 2, schools, restaurants, factories, offices, shopping malls, swap meets, and others are permitted to operate with social distancing. And as noted, ecommerce and entertainment industry activities are already permitted with social distancing. This constitutes precisely the kind of differential treatment the Supreme Court identified in the Lukumi decision in which the government is not willing to impose on certain activities the same restrictions it is willing to impose on constitutionally protected religious worship. While it is true that social distancing requirements applied to places of worship may inevitably result in much smaller congregations than some faith groups would like, in our experience with other controversies around the country, many places of worship are quite content to operate at 15-25% of capacity in a way that allows for social distancing between family groups.

The Department of Justice does not seek to dictate how States such as California determine what degree of activity and personal interaction should be allowed to protect the safety of their citizens. However, we are charged with upholding the Constitution and federal statutory protections for civil rights. Whichever level of restrictions you adopt, these civil rights protections mandate equal treatment of persons and activities of a secular and religious nature.

We recognize that three U.S. District Courts have denied Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO’s) sought by plaintiffs against Executive Order N-33-20, Abiding Place Ministries v. Wooten, No. 3:20-cv-00683 (S.D. Cal. April 10, 2020) (no written opinion); Gish v. Newsom, No. 5:20-CV-755 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020); Cross Culture Christian Ctr. v. Newsom, No. 2:20-CV-00832 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2020), and one denied a TRO against the Reopening Plan, which is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, No. 3:20-cv-865 (S.D. Cal. May 15, 2020) (oral transcript ruling). These TRO decisions do not justify California’s actions. The Abiding Place, Gish, and Cross Culture TRO decisions do not address the Stage 2 reopening, and South Bay United Pentecostal does not describe why worship services can be distinguished from schools, restaurants, factories or other places Stage 2 permits people to come together. Other decisions around the country have followed Lukumi to make clear that reopening plans cannot unfairly burden religious services as California has done. See, e.g., Robert v. Neace, No. 20-5465 (6th Cir. May 11, 2020).

Religion and religious worship continue to be central to the lives of millions of Americans. This is true now more than ever. Religious communities have rallied to protect their communities from the spread of this disease by making services available online, in parking lots, or outdoors, by indoor services with a majority of pews empty, and in numerous other creative ways that otherwise comply with social distancing and sanitation guidelines. We believe, for the reasons outlined above, that the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship, including in Stage 2 of the Reopening Plan.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you wish to discuss further, please contact United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California McGregor Scott at (916) 554-2730 or mcgregor.scott@usdoj.gov.

Sincerely,

           Eric S. Dreiband

                             Assistant Attorney General

                Civil Rights Division

McGregor W. Scott

United States Attorney

Eastern District of California

Nicola T. Hanna

United States Attorney

Central District of California

David L. Anderson

United States Attorney

Northern District of California

Robert S. Brewer

United States Attorney

Southern District of California

cc: The Honorable Xavier Becerra

Attorney General of California

Gov. Newsom issues guidelines Monday for reopening places of worship

By 2 Comments

Limited to 25% of capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees whichever is lower; requires county health officer’s approval

By Allen Payton

In response to pressure from President Trump and U.S. Attorney General Barr, last week, and under pressure from a variety of churches and religious groups suing the state, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued guidelines, today, Monday, May 25, 2020, for reopening places of worship, providers of religious services and cultural ceremonies. https://covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-places-of-worship.pdf

However, the guidelines require approval of the county health officer but will have little or no benefit for most churches, as they limit attendance to just 25% of building capacity or 100 attendees maximum whichever is less.

The guidelines were issued “to support a safe, clean environment for employees, interns and trainees, volunteers, scholars, and all other types of workers (referred to collectively as “staff”) as well as congregants, worshippers, visitors, etc. (referred to collectively as “visitors” or ‘congregants’).

This guidance does not obligate places of worship to resume in-person activity. Further, it is strongly recommended that places of worship continue to facilitate remote services and other related activities for those who are vulnerable to COVID19 including older adults and those with co-morbidities. Even with adherence to physical distancing, convening in a congregational setting of multiple different households to practice a personal faith carries a relatively higher risk for widespread transmission of the COVID-19 virus, and may result in increased rates of infection, hospitalization, and death, especially among more vulnerable populations. In particular, activities such as singing, and group recitation negate the risk-reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing.

Places of worship must therefore limit attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower. This limitation will be in effect for the first 21-days of a county public health department’s approval of religious services and cultural ceremonies activities at places of worship within their jurisdictions.

Upon 21-days, the California Department of Public Health, in consultation with county Departments of Public Health, will review and assess the impact of these imposed limits on public health and provide further direction as part of a phased-in restoration of activities in places of worship.”

Among other things, the guidelines also require places of worship to “Perform thorough cleaning of high traffic areas such as lobbies, halls, chapels, meeting rooms, offices, libraries, and study areas and areas of ingress and egress including stairways, stairwells, handrails, and elevator controls. Frequently disinfect commonly used surfaces including doorknobs, toilets, handwashing facilities, pulpits and podiums, donation boxes or plates, altars, and pews and seating areas.”

Efforts were made to the county health spokesperson asking for comment from County Health Officer Dr. Chris Farnitano on the guidelines and how soon places of worship in Contra Costa can expect to reopen. Please check back later for updates to this report.

Drive-thru food distribution event by St. Vincent de Paul in Pittsburg Friday morning

By Leave a Comment

In partnership with the Food Bank of Contra Costa & Solano

By Brit Hotaling, Communications and Development Associate, The Society of St. Vincent de Paul of Contra Costa County

St Vincent de Paul of Contra Costa County (SVdP) will hold a major drive-thru food distribution event in partnership with the Food Bank of Contra Costa & Solano on Friday, May 22.

WHAT: St. Vincent de Paul of Contra Costa County will hold a food distribution of 500 boxes of food and fresh produce to the Pittsburg community while observing social distancing. Food will be available on a drive-thru and walk-up basis. SVdP has ramped up their regular emergency food services in recent months in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The food distribution will take place at SVdP’s Family Resource Center in Pittsburg, with volunteers directing traffic and handing out food supplies.

WHO: St. Vincent de Paul of Contra Costa County

WHEN: Friday, May 22, 2020 from 9 am – 10:30 am, or until supplies last

WHERE: 2210 Gladstone Drive, Pittsburg

WHY: Many neighbors right here in Pittsburg, who have never needed help before, are reaching out for help with food, rental assistance and other bills they are not be able to meet due to loss of income. SVdPCCC is open and serving neighbors-in-need. The SVdPCCC Family Resource Center in Pittsburg remains open to serve via our Free Dining Room (operated in partnership with Loaves & Fishes of Contra Costa), Emergency Food Pantry, Daytime Homeless Shelter for Winter Nights clients, and referral to additional social services.

For additional information: Barb Hunt, b.hunt@svdp-cc.org, (925) 330-6732 or Steven Krank, 925-439-5060 ext 28, s.krank@svdp-cc.org

Drive-in churches now legal in California thanks to lawsuit victory

By Leave a Comment

“But, it’s problematic because going to church still isn’t considered essential” – Attorney Harmeet Dhillon

By Allen Payton

A victory, Friday in a lawsuit on freedom of worship is forcing California to allow drive-in church services.

The lawsuit against the State of California naming Governor Gavin Newsom over his executive order, was filed by San Francisco attorney Harmeet Dhillon, founder of the non-profit Center for American Liberty and co-counsel Mark Meuser, on behalf of three southern California churches and one parishioner. (See related article)

According to twitter posts by Dhillon, a government brief filed late (Friday) morning claimed that “drive in” is a “technology” like streaming video, and now OK. In response to this executive order “clarification” by opposition brief, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties update(d) their health decrees to allow drive-in worship.

“This development is a partial victory in our lawsuit, but it still does not allow in-building services – meaning people seeking spiritual guidance and fellowship safely, are given no right to do so but the same people can visit wine, pot, food, laundry shops with a mask legally,” she tweeted.

“We continue to wait for ruling on TRO (temporary restraining order),” Dhillon continued. “People of faith may be treated no less favorably than any other people in California. Reporters, termite guys, tree trimmers, baristas, stir-fry chefs, grocery workers, and customers of all have rights – so do religious leaders & followers!”

She was asked why this applies to the entire state, when she was only representing the three churches and one parishioner in Southern California.

“But I sued the State of California over the statewide order, and the counties,” she explained.

The place where the so-called policy changes were announced are hidden in the ruling, with the state agreeing that “of course drive-in churches are a technology like streaming video,” Dhillon shared. “You and I both know that’s absurd. But, it’s problematic, because going to church still isn’t considered essential.”

There’s no requirement for the state to publicize the court’s decision.

“It’s sneaky,” she said.

Asked about her clients Dhillon said, “I’m only representing those who are socially responsible, like anyone else.”

According to their website, “The Center for American Liberty defends the Free Speech rights and Civil Liberties of Americans.”

“The non-profit hired my firm to represent the plaintiffs,” she explained.

The decision was handed down by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, which also includes Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.

“I’m glad we were able to do this. This is a small thing,” Dhillon added. “You’re probably not going to see a lot of drive-in churches in the next week or two. But, it’s better than nothing, dressing up, driving in and seeing your friends.”

U.S. Attorney General Barr issues statement on Religious Practice and Social Distancing

By Leave a Comment

Department of Justice files Statement of Interest in Mississippi church case

U.S. Attorney General William Barr. Official portrait by DOJ.

On Tuesday, April 14, 2020, United States Attorney General William P. Barr, the nation’s top law enforcement officer, issued the following statement:

“In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the President has issued guidelines calling on all Americans to do their part to slow the spread of a dangerous and highly contagious virus.  Those measures are important because the virus is transmitted so easily from person to person, and because it all too often has life-threatening consequences for its victims, it has the potential to overwhelm health care systems when it surges.

To contain the virus and protect the most vulnerable among us, Americans have been asked, for a limited period of time, to practice rigorous social distancing.  The President has also asked Americans to listen to and follow directions issued by state and local authorities regarding social distancing.  Social distancing, while difficult and unfamiliar for a nation that has long prided itself on the strength of its voluntary associations, has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of American lives from an imminent threat.  Scrupulously observing these guidelines is the best path to swiftly ending COVID-19’s profound disruptions to our national life and resuming the normal economic life of our country.  Citizens who seek to do otherwise are not merely assuming risk with respect to themselves, but are exposing others to danger.  In exigent circumstances, when the community as a whole faces an impending harm of this magnitude, and where the measures are tailored to meeting the imminent danger, the constitution does allow some temporary restriction on our liberties that would not be tolerated in normal circumstances.

But even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers.  Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity. For example, if a government allows movie theaters, restaurants, concert halls, and other comparable places of assembly to remain open and unrestricted, it may not order houses of worship to close, limit their congregation size, or otherwise impede religious gatherings.  Religious institutions must not be singled out for special burdens.

Today, the Department filed a Statement of Interest in support of a church in Mississippi that allegedly sought to hold parking lot worship services, in which congregants listened to their pastor preach over their car radios, while sitting in their cars in the church parking lot with their windows rolled up.  The City of Greenville fined congregants $500 per person for attending these parking lot services – while permitting citizens to attend nearby drive-in restaurants, even with their windows open.[1]  The City appears to have thereby singled churches out as the only essential service (as designated by the state of Mississippi) that may not operate despite following all CDC and state recommendations regarding social distancing.

As we explain in the Statement of Interest, where a state has not acted evenhandedly, it must have a compelling reason to impose restrictions on places of worship and must ensure that those restrictions are narrowly tailored to advance its compelling interest.  While we believe that during this period there is a sufficient basis for the social distancing rules that have been put in place, the scope and justification of restrictions beyond that will have to be assessed based on the circumstances as they evolve.

Religion and religious worship continue to be central to the lives of millions of Americans.  This is true more so than ever during this difficult time.  The pandemic has changed the ways Americans live their lives.  Religious communities have rallied to the critical need to protect the community from the spread of this disease by making services available online and in ways that otherwise comply with social distancing guidelines.

The United States Department of Justice will continue to ensure that religious freedom remains protected if any state or local government, in their response to COVID-19, singles out, targets, or discriminates against any house of worship for special restrictions.”

 

UPDATE: Contra Costa Sheriff issues misdemeanor citation to North Richmond church for holding Easter service

By Leave a Comment

All Nations Church of God in Christ from Google Maps and Pastor Wyndford Williams, Sr. from the church’s Facebook page.

UPDATE: Filed the case with DA’s office for prosecution; parishioners weren’t wearing masks nor practicing social distancing according to the Deputy Sheriff. Pastor denies those claims.

By Allen Payton

In a press release from the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s spokesman Jimmy Lee wrote, “at about 12:32 PM on Sunday, April 12, 2020, the Office of the Sheriff received an anonymous complaint of an unlawful assembly at the All Nations Church of God in Christ at 1225 York Street in North Richmond.

A deputy responded to the location and saw approximately 40 people inside the church. None of them were wearing a face mask and they did not practice social distancing.

The deputy first spoke to the deacon and asked to speak to the pastor who was in front of the parishioners. The pastor was uncooperative and refused to talk to the deputy.

The deputy left the location and wrote a report.

On April 13, 2020, a Deputy responded to the church and issued a misdemeanor citation for violation of the Health Officer order (California Health and Safety Code § 120295).

The Sheriff’s Office later filed a case with the Contra Costa DA’s Office for prosecution.

‘Our focus has been on education of the Health Officer Order and in the vast majority of cases we ask for voluntary compliance and that solves the problem,’ said Contra Costa Sheriff David Livingston. ‘This was different. The pastor refused to cooperate and put the lives of dozens of parishioners at risk.’”

Asked if the deputy attempted to interrupt the church service to speak to the pastor, Lee responded, “no” and reiterated that the deputy first spoke to the deacon. Asked if the deputy waited until after the church service was over to speak to the pastor, Lee responded, “I don’t have that detail but the Deputy made several attempts to talk to the pastor, who refused to talk to him.”

Attempts to reach the church’s pastor, Wyndford Williams, Sr., for comment by phone and email were unsuccessful prior to publication time. A message on the church’s Facebook page Thursday afternoon stated media inquiries were to be sent to the pastor’s email address and that “a reply will be sent within 24 hours.”

5:11 PM UPDATE: The following “official statement” was received from the pastor refuting the Sheriff Deputy’s claims in his report – “Easter Sunday is one of the most important celebrations in the Christian faith. A small service was held with approximately forty people in attendance. Masks were worn. Hand sanitizers were provided. Families that lived together sat together. Otherwise, social distancing was observed.”

On Monday, U.S. Attorney General Barr issued a statement on “Religious Practice and Social Distancing”.

In it, he wrote, “In exigent circumstances, when the community as a whole faces an impending harm of this magnitude, and where the measures are tailored to meeting the imminent danger, the constitution does allow some temporary restriction on our liberties that would not be tolerated in normal circumstances.

But even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers.  Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity. For example, if a government allows movie theaters, restaurants, concert halls, and other comparable places of assembly to remain open and unrestricted, it may not order houses of worship to close, limit their congregation size, or otherwise impede religious gatherings.  Religious institutions must not be singled out for special burdens.”

The Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in support of a church in Mississippi that sought to hold “parking lot worship services, in which congregants listened to their pastor preach over their car radios, while sitting in their cars in the church parking lot with their windows rolled up.” That was because the “city (of Greenville) appears to have…singled churches out as the only essential service (as designated by the state of Mississippi) that may not operate despite following all CDC and state recommendations regarding social distancing… while permitting citizens to attend nearby drive-in restaurants, even with their windows open.”

In the case of the All Nations Church of God, neither the pastor nor parishioners were following the guidelines and practices of social distancing as outlined in the county health officer’s order of “no gatherings”. (See related article)

Asked if the Sheriff’s Office wouldn’t have cited the church if the parishioners had been wearing masks and practiced social distancing, or if it was because more than 10 people were gathered, Lee responded, “Everything we want to say is in the press release.”

See the complete statement by Attorney General Barr, here:

Attorney General William P. Barr Issues Statement on Religious Practice and Social Distancing; Department of Justice Files Statement of Interest in Mississippi Church Case

Attorney General William P. Barr issued the following statement:

“In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the President has issued guidelines calling on all Americans to do their part to slow the spread of a dangerous and highly contagious virus.  Those measures are important because the virus is transmitted so easily from person to person, and because it all too often has life-threatening consequences for its victims, it has the potential to overwhelm health care systems when it surges.

To contain the virus and protect the most vulnerable among us, Americans have been asked, for a limited period of time, to practice rigorous social distancing.  The President has also asked Americans to listen to and follow directions issued by state and local authorities regarding social distancing.  Social distancing, while difficult and unfamiliar for a nation that has long prided itself on the strength of its voluntary associations, has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of American lives from an imminent threat.  Scrupulously observing these guidelines is the best path to swiftly ending COVID-19’s profound disruptions to our national life and resuming the normal economic life of our country.  Citizens who seek to do otherwise are not merely assuming risk with respect to themselves, but are exposing others to danger.  In exigent circumstances, when the community as a whole faces an impending harm of this magnitude, and where the measures are tailored to meeting the imminent danger, the constitution does allow some temporary restriction on our liberties that would not be tolerated in normal circumstances.

But even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers.  Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity. For example, if a government allows movie theaters, restaurants, concert halls, and other comparable places of assembly to remain open and unrestricted, it may not order houses of worship to close, limit their congregation size, or otherwise impede religious gatherings.  Religious institutions must not be singled out for special burdens.

Today, the Department filed a Statement of Interest in support of a church in Mississippi that allegedly sought to hold parking lot worship services, in which congregants listened to their pastor preach over their car radios, while sitting in their cars in the church parking lot with their windows rolled up.  The City of Greenville fined congregants $500 per person for attending these parking lot services – while permitting citizens to attend nearby drive-in restaurants, even with their windows open.[1]  The City appears to have thereby singled churches out as the only essential service (as designated by the state of Mississippi) that may not operate despite following all CDC and state recommendations regarding social distancing.

As we explain in the Statement of Interest, where a state has not acted evenhandedly, it must have a compelling reason to impose restrictions on places of worship and must ensure that those restrictions are narrowly tailored to advance its compelling interest.  While we believe that during this period there is a sufficient basis for the social distancing rules that have been put in place, the scope and justification of restrictions beyond that will have to be assessed based on the circumstances as they evolve.

Religion and religious worship continue to be central to the lives of millions of Americans.  This is true more so than ever during this difficult time.  The pandemic has changed the ways Americans live their lives.  Religious communities have rallied to the critical need to protect the community from the spread of this disease by making services available online and in ways that otherwise comply with social distancing guidelines.

The United States Department of Justice will continue to ensure that religious freedom remains protected if any state or local government, in their response to COVID-19, singles out, targets, or discriminates against any house of worship for special restrictions.”

 

 

Contra Costa Health Services reminds residents to observe religious practices at home this weekend – 9 deaths now reported in county

By 1 Comment

Friday, April 10, 2020

Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) reminds the public that county residents should observe their faiths at home while the health officer’s stay-at-home order remains in place, though this month is a time of significant religious activity for many people.

The health officer order, a measure to protect our community from the spread of COVID-19, requires Contra Costa residents to stay home except for essential trips, such as to find food, healthcare or to provide care for someone who cannot leave their home, or to go to and from an essential job.

The order lasts through May 3, a period that may affect important observances for many faiths, such as Good Friday, Holy Week, Orthodox Easter, Passover, Ramadan, and others.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted our lives, and we empathize with anyone who is unable to practice their religious traditions and celebrations as usual during this challenging time,” said Dr. Chris Farnitano, Contra Costa County Health Officer. “However, to protect everyone in the community, we must avoid gatherings outside of one’s immediate household to reduce the spread of the virus.”

CCHS thanks the county’s faith community for helping to keep their members safe from COVID-19 and urges faith leaders to continue to suspend in-person gatherings and not bring large groups of people together while the health order remains in place.

Suspending in-person gatherings does not mean suspending worship. Many organizations continue to observe together, through livestreaming or by watching recorded services online.

Learn more about COVID-19 in Contra Costa County, including how to protect yourself, at cchealth.org/coronavirus, or call the Contra Costa Coronavirus Call Center with questions at 1-844-729-8410. The call center is open daily from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Public menorah lightings in East County celebrate Chanuka

By Leave a Comment

Rabbi Peretz Goldshmid of Chabad of the Delta with community supporters Art Solomon, Alice and Marty Bauman celebrate Chanukah with the lighting of the menorah in Brentwood on Sunday, Dec. 22, 2019. Photo courtesy of Rabbi Goldshmid.

Attendees sing at the Brentwood menorah lighting. Photo by Betty Estes.

The light of Chanukah has illuminated Eastern Contra Costa County. We are excited to have added Giant Menorahs to City Center of Oakley, Waldie Plaza in Antioch and of course at Brentwood City Hall.

The joy and festivities of Chanukah were celebrated at Brentwood City Hall on Sunday, Dec. 22. There was a large crowd in attendance at the Chabad of the Delta’s Grand Menorah Lighting at City Hall.

Chanukah, a joyous holiday also known as the Festival of Lights, commemorates the Jews’ triumph over Greek oppression nearly 2,200 years ago and the subsequent rededication of the Second Temple of Jerusalem.

Following the traditional Chanukah greeting of ‘Happy Chanukah’, Rabbi Peretz Goldshmid said the blessing and lit the giant menorah – the nine-branch candelabrum that Jews light each night of Chanukah.

Chanukah, whose dates are set by the Jewish calendar, lasts for eight days, this year corresponding to Dec. 22-Dec. 30.

The Chanukah celebration in Brentwood before the menora lighting. Photo by Allen Payton.

After lighting the first flame to mark the first night, the Rabbi continued with his inspirational message. “Each night that we add an extra flame, is a reminder that of the need to increase acts of kindness and warmth to make the world a brighter place.” Goldshmid then continued in his usual eloquent style, “When we bring more light and warmness and kindness into the world eight consecutive nights, it is a very special energy.

People joined in singing traditional Chanukah tunes with musical accompaniment.

The crowd partook in traditional Chanukah cuisine, consisting of delicious doughnuts and hot fried potato latkes.

Rabbi Peretz Goldshmid of Chabad of the Delta (center) is flanked by city employees James Plueger and Joe of the Public Works Department for the menorah lighting on Sat., Dec. 21, 2019. Photo courtesy of Rabbi Goldschmid.

“It’s a family tradition to enjoy Chanukah,” remarked Kayla, who attended with her young daughter Debra. “The crafts, games and awesome fire show ensure this tradition.”

Chanukah, which stems from the Hebrew word for dedication, celebrated the miracle of the oil that had the volume to last one day but instead lasted eight. So too, with the immense dedication of Rabbi Peretz and Mrs. Mashie Goldshmid, Chabad of the Delta is experiencing its’ own little miracle. What was once a dormant Jewish community is now flourishing – the local Jewish community is experiencing tremendous growth. New classes, prayer services and Jewish Kids Club are all up and running.

The menorah at Oakley City Hall. Photo courtesy of Rabbi Goldshmid.

Of the Antioch menorah lighting, Peretz said “Thank you James Pflueger, Joe, Darrel, Laurie Schwartz and the City of Antioch, California for making the menorah go up. The name Antioch originates from Antiochus of the Chanukah story.”

The annual Jewish festival commemorates the rededication of the Second Temple in Jerusalem after the Maccabean Jews regained control of Jerusalem after overthrowing King Antiochus IV Epiphenes of the Seleucid empire.

For more information call the office 925-420- 4999, visit www.JewishDelta.com or follow us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/ChabadDelta/.

This successful event was sponsored by Chabad of the Delta and made possible by generous donations from community members and Hadassah George in memory of her parents Avraham and Miriam Vareed who lived their lives with the message of Chanukah, spreading light and Jewish pride even in the toughest of times.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.