The Resurrection School, which has been conducting in-person learning since last August, is set to argue on Wednesday in the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that it is unconstitutional to require children to wear masks when doing so would violate “sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Jacob Allstott, the school’s principal, described the Catholic K-5 institution in Lansing as a "family-oriented" space "where students are encouraged to reach their God-given potential." "We focus on the basics, we wrestle with the truth, and we appreciate the goodness and beauty found in all of God’s creation," Allstott wrote on the school website.
The school argued that humans are created in God's image and masks prevent the public from seeing that image. Stated in the suit:
“In accordance with the teachings of the Catholic faith, Resurrection School believes that every human has dignity and is made in God’s image and likeness. Unfortunately, a mask shields our humanity. And because God created us in His image, we are masking that image. Masks also make us anti-social. They interfere with relations. As the Catholic faith teaches, we are relational beings. And our existence as relational beings points to the Holy Trinity. A mask is disruptive to this essential element of the Catholic faith, and it is disruptive to the teaching of young children for these and other reasons. Plaintiffs share these deeply held religious beliefs.”
A parent in the lawsuit said masks exacerbate her student's struggle with speech issues. “Wearing a facial covering exacerbates her struggles with speech and impedes her teacher’s ability to see her mouth to determine if her mouth is in the proper position to say letters and sounds correctly,” plaintiffs said in the suit. They also deemed masks a “symbol of oppression,” a violation of rights to “bodily integrity and personal autonomy free from government interference,” and an “attempt by the government to control the citizenry.” “Wearing a mask conveys the message that the wearer has surrendered his or her freedom to the government,” plaintiffs argued in the suit.
Not wearing one, however, can impact much more than the debated right to spread a deadly virus.
No comments:
Post a Comment