Artigos de revistas sobre o tema "St. Bartholomew's Church"

There cannot be many hospitals and medical schools owing their origins to the visual hallucinations and grim forebodings of a depressed monk. Yet that is precisely the story of how the venerable institution of St. Bartholomew's Hospital was founded. The monk Rahere, on a journey to Rome to obtain forgiveness for his sins, “fell ill and thought his last hour was drawing nigh. He burst into tears and vowed a vow that if he should be allowed to return to his own country he would there build a hospital for the recovering of the poor” (Moore, 1918). On his way home, he had a vision of St. Bartholomew who instructed him, among other things, to build a church in Smithfield. Was it, asks Moore, a fantastic illusion, such as men have in their sleep, or was it a heavenly oracle? Was the illness, he might have added, a depressive illness given the melancholic mood, tearfulness, feelings of impending doom, and gradual recovery? And why a vision of St. Bartholomew? The saint is associated with medicine, or more accurately with surgery. The fact that he was flayed alive and thereafter has tended to be protrayed pictorially with his skin draped in folds about his bones has suggested to some a distinctly ‘barber-surgeon’ flavour, and he is indeed the patron saint of butchers. Less well-known is the fact that he exorcised a devil from King Polimius's daughter—a therapeutic action which entitles him to be regarded as the patron saint of nervous diseases, (Dawson, 1957).

The church of St Bartholomew the Great in West Smithfield is not generally thought of as a building of major importance, probably because the plan of its presbytery seems to suggest that it was a rather outmoded imitation of Norwich Cathedral. The first part of this paper examines the basis for such an assumption and offers an explanation for the similarities between the presbyteries of the two buildings. Affiliations between the two institutions are placed in the wider context of the aspirations of the London episcopate in the decades either side of II00. Smithfield emerges as an extraordinary building, highly untypical of contemporary Augustinian architecture. The twelfth-century foundation narrative of Smithfield implies that, while in building, the church struck onlookers as astonishingly innovative. Taken at face value, this is puzzling, since most of the elements of its design had been common architectural currency for a generation or more. This apparently paradoxical situation is explored in the second part of the paper and the basis for Smithfield's perceived modernity while under construction very tentatively reconstructed.

One of Belgium's «seven marvels», the baptismal font in St-Bartholomew's church in Liège has been claimed the most beautiful in the world. It has been at the center of a heated debate since 1984 : is it the masterpiece produced by a Mosan goldsmith, Renier de Huy, between 1107 and 1118, as has generally been thought for many years ? or was it cast in the end of the tenth century in Byzantium ? The controversy is in progress. Problems are meanwhile being raised about the pedestal, which originally had twelve oxen, like the «brazen sea» of king Solomon, but which nowadays has only ten left, with parts of legs quite severely damaged. Various improvements are being proposed.

The author describes a project which was created to encourage communication, through music and drama, between mainstream sixth form pupils and a local Special School. The course was offered as part of the Certificate of Pre- Vocational Education of the Joint Board of City and Guilds/B. Tech. and was open to all sixth form students irrespective of their musical expertise or experience. None had previously worked with handicapped children.Dorothy Tipton is Head of Music at the Rowena School for Girls, Sittingbourne. Her interest in Special School work was awakened during a Diploma in Music Education course at Christ Church College, Canterbury, resulting in a dissertation on ‘Music in the Mainstream Classroom for children with Special Needs’ (1985). During this research close and lasting links were developed with the local Special School for the severely handicapped, St Bartholomew's School, Milton, Kent. In March 1988, project cards for Music non-specialist primary school teachers Exploring Sounds and Themes, devised by Dorothy Tipton, Alan Vincent and Vanessa Young, were published by Kent Education Committee.

In the providence of God, St Bartholomew’s Day, 1862, fell on a Sunday, just as it had two hundred years before. On that earlier Sabbath, some 2,000 ministers were ejected from their livings because they could not conscientiously swear their ‘unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed’ in the new Prayer Book, or meet some of the other requirements of the new Act of Uniformity. Rejected by the Established Church, many of these men continued to fulfil their callings outside her pale and thereby gave a major, new impetus to Dissent. As the bicentenary of ‘Black Bartholomew’s Day’ approached, Victorian Nonconformists resolved to make the most of’the opportunity which God’s providence has brought round to them’. In this retrospective year, historical claims became powerful weapons in the struggle between Church and Dissent; and the past became contested territory which both sides sought to appropriate in order to add legitimacy to their present positions.

Abstract The researched truss of the Gothic Church of St. Bartholomew in the village of Mladočov is one of the examples of the use of the historical Czech length units of measurement; in this case, the Gothic and Baroque part of it. At the same time, it analyzes the proportional relationships between the individual elements of the truss. The structural analysis in relation to current standards points to the fact that the original design of the structure based on geometrical and proportional principles satisfy the reliability conditions defined by current European standards for structural design.

The standard general histories of the Church of Ireland are inevitably curtailed in their treatment of the years under review in this section. Mant’s two volumes were published in 1840, and the relevant volume of Phillips’s three-part work appeared in 1934. The final chapter (by C. A. Webster) is entitled ‘The church since disestablishment’, and its tone is consistent with the instructions given to the team of authors by the general synod in 1929, when the work was commissioned, that it should constitute ‘a measure of defence against hostile propaganda’. Accordingly, considerable attention is paid to such Church of Ireland grievances as the bull Apostolicae curiae and the Ne temere decree. Several pages are devoted to the St Bartholomew’s ritual cases, and space is given to changes in the church constitution and to missionary work overseas. Of the Church of Ireland's interaction with the profound social and political changes then taking place in the country, little is said, apart from a reference to the need for church extension in Belfast. Perhaps it was too soon. Scarcely of the same magnitude as Phillips's extensive survey, the single-volume history by Johnston, Robinson and Jackson, though published thirty years later, takes the story no further, nor can it be said to show evidence of the transformation in Irish historiography that had taken place in the intervening decades.

Archaeological investigation was carried out in the first half of 2022 on the site Užupio g. 15A, which falls within the territory of the Vilnius St. Bartholomew’s Church building complex. During the research it was expected to find cultural layer horizons associated with the church and the cemetery next to it. Although archaeological finds and disturbed graves were discovered during the excavation, the most intriguing finds were collected in recessed structures dating from the first half of the XX century. As many as 69 bottles and vials were collected, most of which were used to store medicines. Four individual fragments with inscriptions were also found. Among the finds above, three bottles were found with preserved contents inside. This article, which is an interdisciplinary collaboration between archaeologists, historians, and chemists, analyses the archaeological and historical context of the mentioned finds, the places of manufacture of the discovered medicine bottles, the results of analyses of the contents found in the bottles, and interpretations of the possible uses of the recovered medicinal substances.

In 1985, excavations by the Department of Urban Archaeology in Kinghorn Street, adjacent to St Bartholomew the Great, resulted in the discovery of one of the most important pieces of medieval painting to have been found in the City of London (colour plate 1).Discovered in two halves, the painted stone had been reused in a sixteenth- or seventeenth-century well construction immediately to the east of the church. The curved right edge of the stone probably derives from this secondary usage. When found, the two pieces were covered in lime mortar, to which, unfortunately, some of the paint layer transferred. The fragment is now in the Museum of London, where the two halves have been rejoined and other conservation work has been undertaken.

From the History of the Roman-Catholic Parish and Its Medieval Church in Stawiszyn from 1880 to 1940. An Introduction to Research The Roman Catholic parish in Stawiszyn was probably founded in the 13th century and due to the fact that these goods were royal property, its founder was the monarch at the time. Two centuries later, it was one of the most prosperous benefices in the Kalisz Archdeaconry. In 1360, at the initiative of King Casimir the Great, a brick church was built in place of the wooden temple, which was consecrated under the invocation of St. Bartholomew and St. Jadwiga. Over the centuries, the architecture of the church, originally gothic, has undergone numerous changes. The building was destroyed and rebuilt several times, and each renovation left traces blurring its original style. The most important changes were implemented in the years 1880-1940, i.e. in the period when the ministry was exercised by three parish priests: Teodor Meyer, Edmund Esman and Bronisław Kozankiewicz. Each of them played an important role in the history of the Catholic parish in Staviszyn. The purpose of this article is not to evaluate the reconstruction of the parish church in Stawiszyn during the times of the above-mentioned servants of God, but to present to the reader their most important merits in this aspect. At the same time, it should be emphasized that the activities of Father Edmund Esman can be considered the closest to the activities referred to today as “restoration”. This does not in any way detract from the achievements of the other two priests, thanks to whom the parishioners of Staviszyn can admire the monuments of sacred art that have survived to this day. This text is only a contribution to further research, which should be deepened by a thorough analysis of the archival materials stored in the Diocesan Archives in Włocławek.

For nearly 900 years the Priory Church of St Bartholomew the Great has functioned as an expression of wider religious moods, movements, and aspirations. Founded in 1123 by Rahere, a courtier of Henry I, at a time when the Augustinian Canons gained a brief ascendancy over older forms of religious life, it represents the last flowering of English Romanesque architecture. The Priory was dissolved by Henry VIII, became a house of Dominicans under Mary, and saw the flames that consumed the Smithfield martyrs. Since Elizabeth’s reign it has been a parish church serving a small and poor but populous area within the City of London but outside the walls. Its history is fairly well documented. Richard Rich lived in the former Lady Chapel. Walter Mildmay worshipped, and was buried, there. John Wesley preached there. Hogarth was baptized there. Parts of the church had been turned over to secular use. There was a blacksmith’s forge in the north transept beyond the bricked-up arch of the crossing and the smoke from the forge often filled the building. A school occupied the north triforium gallery. The Lady Chapel was further divided, and early in the eighteenth century Samuel Palmer, a printer, had his letter foundry there. The young Benjamin Franklin worked there for a year in 172 s and recorded the experience in his autobiography. The church, surrounded by houses, taverns, schools, chapels, stables, and warehouses, was a shadow of its medieval glory; but between 1828 and 1897 it changed internally and externally almost beyond recognition. The process of change continued over the next forty years and indeed continues still. These changes in architecture and furnishings were closely linked to a changed attitude to medieval buildings, to issues of churchmanship, and to liturgical developments.

I draw the historical background with the question of how the city has for centuries been communicating with visual signs with its so different external sovereigns. After general remarks, I focus on the ruler’s relationship with the city during the Teutonic Knights’ era, as the example serving the Teutonic castle in Gdansk, from the beginning of its construction to the story of its demolition. The Teutonic castle was built, according to the message of Wigand of Marburg, during the time of Grand Master Dietrich von Altenburg around 1340. Unlike the dating, its form disappears in the darkness of history. Archaeologists have proven the existence of a castle complex consisting of the main castle and two baileys on the site of the former castle of the Pomeranian dynasty of Samborids. The convent house: a square with sides of about 53 m, had four residential wings grouped around the courtyard, three towers at the corners, and a high guard tower. The article then deals with the castle as a kind of a protagonist of the drama in the war for symbols, developing in four scenes. The first took place after the Battle of Grunwald in 1410, when the town paid homage to Polish King Władysław Jagiello, but in the autumn of 1410 it returned to the rule of the Teutonic Order. In the following months, the city authorities reacted negatively to the attempt of the Grand Master Henry von Plauen to raise taxes. Mayors and members of the City Council: Konrad Letzkau, Arnold Hecht, and Bartholomew (Bartholomäus) Gross, were invited to the Teutonic Knights’ Castle in spring 1411 under the pretext of negotiations, and there they were murdered in unclear circumstances. The town responded by burying both mayors, and probably Gross as well, in the ambulatory of St Mary’s Church, (possibly) in St Hedwig’s Chapel belonging to the Letzkau family. The tombstone (nowadays destructed after the fire of 1734), which preserved anti–Teutonic sentiments, became an attraction for visitors, and was excluded from the normal burial practice of St Mary’s Church in the early modern times. Another part of our dispute occurred in 1453, when the Gdansk delegates complained at the Reich’s conciliatory assembly in Vienna about the Gdansk Commander forbidding to continue the construction of the tower of St John’s Church. On this basis, Olaf Asendorf constructed a theory on the general prohibition of building high towers in the Teutonic state, the so-called turmverbote. However, we have no proof that such a ban existed in any form, and apart from two other messages from Elbląg and Kaliningrad, former Königsberg, we cannot trace this kind of regulation in the written sources. On the other hand, none of the towers dominating the panorama of Gdansk was built before 1457. It was only after the transition to Polish sovereignty that the construction of the towers of St John’s Church, St Catherine’s Church, St Mary’s Church, and the Town Hall tower continued. The case from 1453 fits the hypothesis of fighting with the Order with the use of the city’s symbol, but this is rather a hysterical reaction of the economically and politically weakened corporation, which tries to enforce the city’s obedience by prohibiting the further construction of the tower of St John’s Church. The events of the Thirteen Years’ War (1454–1466): Gdansk was to throw off the yoke of the Teutonic Knights’ power and voluntarily surrender to the power of the Polish monarchy together with the guarantee of maximum privileges, are the backdrop to the next stage of our battle with the use of symbols. Most probably in February 1454, a decision was made to demolish the fortress, which could potentially become the seat of the new ruler, thus threatening the autonomy of the city. During the negotiations between the Gdansk envoys and Casimir IV Jagiello in February and March 1454 in Cracow, the delegates secretly sent the following letter to the City Council: ‘ Those of the seats [castles of the Teutonic knights] that were demolished are to remain destroyed, but we are not [allowed] to continue the demolition of these castles without consulting or informing the Lord King and the Estates. Hence, good friends, if you have not destroyed them, we advise you in all your power that you are to dismantle them the sooner the better, before we are back home, because the Lord King is “drooling” at the thought of Gdansk’. In the original hern conynge henget de lunge sere up Danczik is an idiomatic Lower German term, literally meaning King hangs his lung [to occupy the castle], so he cares a lot about it. This is what happened. Just like in Elbląg, Toruń and Bartoszyce and partly in Królewiec, the municipal authorities thoroughly demolished the Teutonic Castle. As early as in 1857, August Lobegott Randt noted, without mentioning the source, that when the star vaults over the main hall of the Artus Manor were unfastened in 1478–1481, pillars from the Teutonic Castle were used; this theory was taken up by almost all later literature. A whole range of other relics in various places in Gdansk made of sandstone or granite, together with the latest finding in St Mary’s Church from 2020, are now connected with the Castle. This theory fits perfectly with the considerations of political iconography. In the Artus Court, the first monumental building completed after the Grand Permit of 1457, architectural details from the former seat of the supreme authority are placed, since it is where the elites of the new republic meet. Together with the demolition of the Castle, the knowledge of its silhouette was lost. Only indirectly does the image give us a fascinating iconographic message, which for me is the fourth episode of the ‘battle with the use of images’. In the painting ‘The Ship of the Church’ from the Artus Manor, destroyed in 1945: a representation of a ship armed with cannons symbolizing the community of Gdansk, in one corner rather a small depiction of a castle can be seen. It shows the main tower, the evidence of which was proven by the 2002 archaeological researches. Its unusual spire evokes obvious associations with the Flemish–Brabantine belfry towers: free–standing towers or towers inscribed in town halls or cloth halls being symbols of urban self–government. What is the function of the representation of the Teutonic castle in the painting? Who was its author and fundator? According to Adam Labuda’s interpretation, it is the pendant to the painting ‘Siege of Malbork’, lost in 1945 – of almost identical dimensions, stylistically similar – and seems to be the work of the same painter. Together with the latter, it conveys the story of the battle for the gained independence of Gdansk, a powerful and rich city, united in religion and under the sceptre of the King. It is possible that the paintings were executed in connection with the would–be visit to the city of Jan Olbracht in 1501, or another entry of Alexander I in 1504. But what remains a puzzle is the function of a Teutonic castle with a Flemish helmet in the painting. Was it only related to the possible Dutch origin of the artist, or was it a political message, wishful thinking of the founders: an allusion to Gdansk as an independent city? The article on its first level interprets a non–existent building which has become the protagonist, the pretext, and the background of the multi–act drama of ‘the battle with the use of images’. More generally, it states the entanglement of Gdansk art and architecture in politics as a characteristic feature of this metropolis through all epochs. Yet above all, I would like to thank Małgorzata Omilanowska, the one to whom we dedicate this volume, because without her initiative I would never have started teaching in this fascinating city and thus researching its art history.

On the eve of the St. Bartholomew’s Day in 1572, thousands of French Huguenots were massacred in Paris. One of the victims was their leader, admiral Gaspard de Coligny (1519–1572). His martyrdom was narrated in a short story which was translated into Hungarian with the title “Wedding in Paris” by a student from Debrecen, József Pap in 1766. The manuscript is kept at the Library of the Reformed College of Debrecen. One of the sources of this document was Jacobus Augustus Thuanus’ work, Historiarum sui temporis. This study interprets the historical background of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre and its eighteenth-century Hungarian reception, and highlights that Coligny is shown as a Huguenot martyr in the text. The main purpose of the translator was to comfort the members of the Reformed Church and set an example for them during the period of the “bloodless counter-reformation” in eighteenth-century Hungary.

В 40-х гг. XIII в. в армяно-латинских церковных отношениях произошли значительные изменения. В этот период Папа римский настаивал на том, чтобы Католикос Всех Армян признал его верховенство. Свое главенство над Вселенской церковью Папа римский обосновывал тем, что он является наместником святого Петра, первоверховного апостола. В ответ на это Армянская Церковь подчеркнула, что была основана апостолами Фаддеем и Варфоломеем. Чтобы ослабить позицию Армянской Церкви, Папа указал на то, что, по некоторым данным, святой Фаддей не был причислен к двенадцати ученикам Иисуса Христа. Настаивая на том, что основатель Армянской Церкви, апостол Фаддей, действительно был одним из двенадцати учеников Христа, армяне одновременно стали подчеркивать значение апостола Варфоломея. Согласно всем Евангелиям, Варфоломей был одним из двенадцати апостолов Христа. Следует отметить, что склонность к предпочтению Варфоломея перед Фаддеем возникла в Армянской Церкви уже в X веке в ответ на требования Византийской империи и Константинопольского патриархата признать их верховенство. In the 1240s, significant changes took place in the Armenian-Latin church relations. During this period, the Pope insisted that the Catholicos of All Armenians accept his supremacy. The Pope justified his supremacy over the Universal Church by claiming to be the vicar of St. Peter, the chief of the apostles. In response, the Armenian Church emphasized its apostolic lineage, tracing its foundation back to the apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew. To undermine the Armenian Church's position, the Pope pointed out that, according to some accounts, Saint Thaddeus was not counted among the twelve disciples of Jesus Christ. In order to affirm that the founder of the Armenian Church, the apostle Thaddeus, was indeed one of the twelve disciples of Christ, the Armenians concurrently began to highlight the significance of the apostle Bartholomew. According to all the gospels, Bartholomew was one of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ. It is worth noting that the inclination towards favoring Bartholomew over Thaddeus emerged in the Armenian Church as early as the 10th century, in response to the demands of the Byzantine Empire and the Patriarchate of Constantinople to recognize their authority.

Photo 3701647 © Jeremy Swinborne | Dreamstime.com INTRODUCTION Among the many unclear issues as interpretations of Employment Division v. Smith arise in the context of vaccination mandates is a simple question: Does any exception to a law at all (whether for a group or an individual) render a law not “generally applicable and religion-neutral” in the eyes of the current Supreme Court? I. Background Prior to Employment Division v. Smith,[i] Sherbert v. Verner[ii] set forth the free exercise test which called for strict scrutiny requiring a compelling state interest and the use of the least restrictive means to achieve the state interest when a law poses a substantial burden to the exercise of religion. Sherbert had a broad holding that prior to Smith applied to laws whether neutral on their face or not, and whether the asserted discrimination was intentional or not. One issue with Sherbert was that judges were not especially adept at judging the sincerity of beliefs and the importance of religious rituals to individuals, making it difficult to determine whether a law imposed a “substantial burden” on the practice of a religion. Employment Division v. Smith holds that laws that are generally applicable and religion-neutral need not be justified by a compelling government interest even if they do have the effect of (unintentionally) burdening a religious practice.[iii] Smith, decided in 1990, altered and narrowed judicial discretion in evaluating neutral laws that may impede the free exercise of religion. Justice Scalia aligned free exercise with other First Amendment rights.[iv] He also alleviated the need for judges to determine the burden on and the sincerity of religious beliefs in instances of neutral laws. “Smith therefore diminished judicial power to grant religious citizens exemptions from their civic obligations...”[v] Yet a carveout was maintained for laws that have a “mechanism for individualized discretion”; strict scrutiny still applies to those. Lukumi[vi] (1993) reaffirmed yet distinguished Smith. In Lukumi, the law in question was adopted to ensure that a religious group would be rendered unable to sacrifice animals. The law had numerous exemptions (clearly people may kill animals for many non-essential reasons like hunting and fishing for sport, etc.) and the lawmakers seemed to have the intent of interfering with animal sacrifice. It was not considered generally applicable on various grounds and the Lukumi Court states, “As we noted in Smith, in circumstances in which individualized exemptions from a general requirement are available, the government "may not refuse to extend that system to cases of 'religious hardship' without compelling reason." Ibid., quoting Bowen v. Roy, 476 U. S., at 708 (opinion of Burger, C. J.).”[vii] In Lukumi, arguably there were so many exceptions, the rule was clearly targeting religious sacrifices. The Court applied strict scrutiny and the law was deemed unconstitutional. II. The Current Supreme Court and Laws Outside of Smith The current and recent cases indicate that some justices on the Supreme Court assert that the caselaw supports religious exemptions to a broad array of laws. Two arguments support this result: either a limited interpretation of “generally applicable and neutral” or a slightly different tactic which argues that any laws with individual exceptions call for strict scrutiny. (One argument is that those which allow exceptions are not generally applicable and neutral, and thus fall outside of Smith and they require strict scrutiny;[viii] the other is that a law can be generally applicable and neutral, but if it has a system for exceptions, then it is subject to strict scrutiny.[ix]) In John Does 1-3 v. Mills, the Supreme Court denied an injunction on October 29, 2021. The case concerns Maine’s vaccine mandate and will be heard on the merits. Gorsuch dissented from the denial of injunctive relief. He applied Smith, Lukumi, and Fulton v. Philadelphia[x] saying that because there is a medical exemption, the law is not “generally applicable”[xi] and strict scrutiny will apply. Thomas and Alito joined Gorsuch. The Gorsuch dissent also implies that the Maine medical exemption may be somewhat bogus saying Maine finds the “mere trepidation over vaccination as sufficient” if it is expressed in medical rather than religious terms.[xii] Justice Barrett, joined by Kavanaugh, concurred in the denial of the injunction, but clarified that her reasoning was a wish to avoid giving a “merits preview” by enjoining the law, based on the applicants’ likelihood of success, noting the case is “the first to address the questions presented.”[xiii] III. Do Medical Exemptions Negate the Possibility of a Neutral and Generally Applicable Law? Are they a de facto “mechanism for individual exemption”? To me, it seems that under the current law, a medical exemption could make the absence of a religious exemption more problematic. The big issue now is whether Barrett and Kavanaugh and any (even all) other justices are likely to find the medical exemption is a “mechanism for individual exemptions” or whether it otherwise more simply makes a law not neutral or generally applicable. In previous recent COVID-19 cases, the argument of emergency authority was prominent. Caselaw regarding emergency use of governmental powers trumped some constitutional arguments and led to disparate COVID-19 caselaw.[xiv] For example, some courts applied Jacobson v. Massachusetts,[xv] giving deference to public health authorities while others applied strict scrutiny.[xvi] At the Supreme Court level, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer have been more willing to analyze COVID-19 regulations according to emergency powers.[xvii] a. In Favor of the Gorsuch Reasoning The Gorsuch dissent will require the state to offer proof of some rationale for why a medical exemption would be more acceptable, less dangerous, etc. than a religious one. Because there is a medical exemption, the causal nexus between the state’s goals and the restrictions will matter. For example, in Fraternal Order of Police v. Newark, a requirement that police be clean shaven was invalidated because there was a medical exception.[xviii] The problem with the rule was that the government interest in uniformity was not violated any more or less whether the person was noncompliant due to medical as opposed to religious reasons. Gorsuch correctly applied similar reasoning arguing that those not in compliance with the Maine vaccine mandate due to religious exemptions posed no more danger than those noncompliant due to medical conditions.[xix] An opposing side might argue that by the numbers, and without a need for a doctor’s signature, more people would apply for and receive religious exemptions, thus harming the ability to reach herd immunity more, or posing more risk of community spread. b. But, on the other hand There are many laws with medical exemptions. It would not seem right that they be subject to strict scrutiny for failing to offer religious outs as well. For example, places without motorized vehicles could allow motorized wheelchairs. Indeed, the ADA may even call for special treatment in many circumstances where religious special treatment would not be granted. Disability law often requires variances, changing zoning to allow ramps, or other accommodations.[xx] It does not appear that every disability accommodation equates to a need to allow a corresponding religious accommodation, nor that strict scrutiny would apply. Zoning cases are common where churches seek exceptions from historical landmark regulations and the results of those cases vary.[xxi] One of the biggest vulnerabilities of the Smith ruling is that arguably all laws have an individualized enforcement aspect. While it may not be an official exemption or a “mechanism for individual exemption”, individuals have the ability to use courts to challenge laws, there are laws that rely on wishy washy terms, like “good cause”, and there are groups whose failure to comply with laws may be traditionally ignored. In each of those scenarios, those seeking religious exemptions may have a stronger case, and eventually may chip away at Smith. c. Would a Different Built-In Exemption Preclude Application of Smith? Application of Smith may depend on whether the exemption is discretionary or built in. For example, if an exemption said anyone may apply for an exemption with good cause, religious ones should be fairly and equally considered. If an exemption reads anyone with an autoimmune disease is exempt, the class of people exempt would be delineated (unlike the Maine language) rather than discretionary as with the open-ended medical exemption language of the Maine statute. In the case of a class-like exemption, the argument that the law is neutral and generally applicable would be stronger. Smith was not really meant to declare that laws with any categories would be vulnerable to free exercise challenges. Similarly, objective criteria in providing exemptions differs. When criteria for exemptions are made clear, the religious argument could be weaker. However, the Gorsuch argument that in the end the religious objector poses no more danger to others than the medical (or other maybe conscientious, financial, or physical) objector may be the winning argument. IV. Side Note: Another Consideration for Neutral Laws In Roman Catholic Diocese of New York, Justice Kavanaugh created a peer group limitation in applying Smith. Kavanaugh found that a law that limited gatherings at religious services was not neutral. The law had various categories of entity.[xxii] An interesting twist is that other entities similar to churches in objective concrete ways (like theaters) were closed altogether, so arguably religion was favored over those, but disfavored compared to essential businesses (like food stores). The orange and red zones in the challenged Cuomo Executive Order did have specific rules for places of worship. Gorsuch referred to Lukumi in his concurrence and went directly to strict scrutiny without sincerely entertaining the concept that the Executive Order was a neutral and generally applicable law. That is in keeping with his dissent in Does 1-3 v. Mills. Yet, it remains possible to argue that laws with objective, defined categories may still be neutral and generally applicable. V. Time to Abandon Jacobson at this Juncture of COVID-19 Jacobson applies in public health emergencies and, while in recent Supreme Court cases, many justices rightly pointed to the emergency as a reason to compromise important rights, the emergency aspect of the pandemic is waning. In many areas, the positive rate is quite low, businesses are returning to normal, and the vaccination rate is high. As such, the abandonment of strict scrutiny in favor of Jacobson’s emergency deference to public health entities, something Gorsuch failed to entertain in South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom[xxiii] anyway, is arguably no longer warranted. Deference to the state and to experts must be limited to emergencies. Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor who rightly cautioned against “armchair epidemiology”[xxiv] during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic might return to stricter stances on protecting rights as the emergency dies down or becomes localized, and as increasing methods and treatments arise, like the COVID-19 pill by Merck. The calculus of whether we need strict COVID-19 regulations is dynamic. This is not a static emergency with powers to be left in place unconditionally. CONCLUSION The argument that vaccination is a civic and moral obligation that people should engage in regardless of religious beliefs is stronger in an emergency. Whether deemed to include a “mechanism for individual exemptions” or just declared not neutral or generally applicable, laws offering any exceptions are more vulnerable to free exercise claims. Under the current Supreme Court composition, anticipating that laws may face strict scrutiny is wise—Smith is unlikely to shield seemingly neutral laws in the face of free exercise cases. That is not necessarily a bad outcome in a country that purports to allow religious freedom and can do so safely. Strict scrutiny is merely a protection that would ensure the public that laws are meaningful, achieve compelling purposes, and do so without unnecessarily impeding fundamental rights. Yet one bad outcome of a rule that says if there are medical exemptions so must there be religious ones is that lawmakers will write laws that are more absolute, rigid, and unyielding to legitimate claims. [i] 494 U.S. 872 (1990). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/#tab-opinion-1958253 [ii] 374 U.S. 398 (1963). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/374/398/#tab-opinion-1944463 [iii] Smith, at 879 (religion does not excuse people from compliance with neutral laws.) [iv] Kaplan, Carol M., “The Devil is in the Details: Neutral, Generally Applicable Laws and Exemptions from Smith,” New York University Law Review, October 2000. https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-75-4-Kaplan.pdf [v] Kaplan, at 1053. [vi] Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah 508 U.S. 520 (1993). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/520/#tab-opinion-1959281 [vii] Lukumi, at 537. [viii] Keeler v. Mayor of Cumberland. 940 F. Supp. 879 (D. Md. 1996) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/951/83/1381605/; Kaplan, at 1066. [ix] Kaplan, at 1062, citing Swanson v. Guthrie Indep. Sch. Dist., 135 F. Supp. 694 (10th Cir 1998). [x] Fulton v. Philadelphia, 593 U.S. __ (2021) [xi] Does 1-3 v. Mills, 595 U.S. ____(2021). Gorsuch, dissent, p. 2. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a90_6j37.pdf [xii] Does 1-3 v. Mills, Gorsuch dissent, p. 3. [xiii] Does 1-3 v. Mills, Barret, concurring. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a90_6j37.pdf [xiv] Zimmerman, A. “Weeding Out Disingenuous Emergency Orders: A Consistent Ethical Justification to Determine Whether to Apply Jacobson V. Massachusetts’ Deferential Approach or the Tiered Scrutiny That Would Apply Absent an Emergency”. 2021. Voices in Bioethics, vol. 7, May 2021, doi:10.7916/vib.v7i.8037. [xv] 197 US 11 (1905). [xvi] Zimmerman, A. 2021. doi:10.7916/vib.v7i.8037. [xvii] South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2021), Kagan, dissenting, joined by Breyer and Sotomayor (Justices are “not scientists”.) [xviii] Kaplan, at 1079, citing Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark, 170 F. 3d 359 (3d Cir. 1999). [xix] Does 1-3 v. Mills, Gorsuch dissent, p. 4. [xx] https://www.ada.gov/comprob.htm [xxi] Keeler v. Mayor of Cumberland (provisions deemed individualized exemptions so religious deserve strict scrutiny and consideration); Rector of St. Bartholomew’s Church v. City of New York (2d Cir. 1990)(discretion does not negate Smith if it is not discriminatory so religious does not get strict scrutiny); see Kaplan at 1066. [xxii] Cuomo executive order established zones. https://esd.ny.gov/cluster-action-initiative-faq [xxiii] 592 US __ (2021). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf [xxiv] South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2021) (dissent).