A World of Their Own: Illiberal Religious Communities Struggle to Comply With COVID-19 Public Health Regulations.

• Author: Stern, Shai

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. 872 II. THE TRAGEDY OF BEING LATE: ILLIBERAL RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES' LATE RESPONSE TO COVID-19'S THREATS 878 III. WHY DO ILLIBERAL RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES DISOBEY COVID-19 SAFETY REGULATIONS? 884 A. The Structural Explanation 885 B. The Social and Spatial Characteristics of the Community 887 C. The Communicative Explanation 890 D. The Normative Explanation 892 E. The Authoritative Explanation 894 IV. OBEDIENCE IN TIMES OF CRISIS REQUIRES ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF THE STATE-COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIP 897 V. LIBERAL-CENTRIC V. PLURALISTIC-CENTRIC INTERVENTION POLICIES 903 VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS, CAVEATS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH 908 I. INTRODUCTION

On April 28, 2020, following a mass funeral of a prominent leader of an ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in Williamsburg, New York, New York City mayor Bill de Blasio warned all New York City communities--including the Jewish community--that the city's social distancing regulations would no longer be mere warnings. Now, the regulations would bear consequential sanctions. (1) This warning came after a period of tension between state and city authorities and several ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities in New York City (especially in Brooklyn and the Bronx), as well as some in upstate New York, regarding compliance with New York's COVID-19 safety regulations. To slow the spread of the coronavirus, most states issued regulations based on two prominent principles: social distancing and limited outdoor activity. (2) While these safety regulations applied to all citizens, studies show that compliance differed significantly between individuals based on certain characteristics such as a person's financial condition, their social abilities, and their social norms. (3) Although medically speaking, contracting the virus does not depend on one's race, religious affiliation, or income, these factors may have a significant impact on an individual's compliance with COVID-19-related safety regulations. (4) In this sense, the coronavirus measures likely intensified society's inherent tensions. Unsurprisingly, the COVID-19 pandemic further magnified pre-existing tensions between the liberal state and illiberal religious communities like the ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities.

Illiberal religious communities' relationships with liberal states are often tense and suspicious. The inherent and normative differences between illiberal religious communities and a liberal society often lead to social and spatial isolation of illiberal religious communities. (5) The tensions between liberal states and illiberal religious communities arise from the conflict between state and community authority, (6) the harm caused to the individual members of the community, (7) and the externalization of community norms and practices to society. (8) These tensions exist in most Western countries and have been present for decades. (9) Emergencies--especially health-related emergencies--sharpen these tensions but also require both liberal states and illiberal religious communities to overcome these tensions more quickly. Fighting the spread of pandemics--such as COVID-19--should be considered a shared common goal.

World data reveal that some illiberal religious communities responded late to COVID-19 threats. Like some of the ultra-Orthodox communities of New York, Christian communities in South Korea, (10) Florida, (11) and Louisiana; (12) ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities in Israel; (13) and devout Muslim communities in India, (14) all called upon their members to denounce COVID-19 social distancing regulations, despite the available data demonstrating the disease's high morbidity and mortality rates. The late response by illiberal religious communities resulted in high rates of morbidity and mortality within these communities. (15) In some cases, high morbidity and mortality rates have also been recorded in areas and neighborhoods adjacent to illiberal religious communities. (16) Eventually, most illiberal religious communities succumbed to pressure and ordered their members to fully comply with the state's social distancing regulations. (17) However, this late response justifies examining (1) the obstacles that prevented the rapid implementation of social distancing regulations in illiberal religious communities and (2) how these communities and liberal states can overcome those obstacles.

While psychological, behavioral, and legal literature provides data on the causes of individuals' noncompliance with state regulations, both in routine times and in crises, (18) it nevertheless lacks significant reference to the effects of community belonging and the norms held by members of such communities. To the extent that liberal states aim to increase illiberal religious communities' compliance, these effects cannot--and should not--be ignored. This Article thus suggests five factors that may affect the extent of illiberal religious community members' compliance with state regulations. It is important to clarify that the explanations offered in this Article aim to capture the common characteristics of many illiberal religious communities around the world. Of course, not all illiberal religious communities share identical characteristics, and they certainly have distinct differences in the normative plane. Yet, many illiberal religious communities maintain similarities stemming out of their status as minority communities and their rejection of liberal norms. The explanations provided in this Article, therefore, portray broad-brush characterizations of the challenges that these community members face when required to comply with state regulations.

This Article suggests five explanations for illiberal religious communities' delayed response to COVID-19: (1) the structural explanation, which emphasizes the hierarchical nature of these communities' decision-making processes; (2) the social and spatial characteristics explanation, which focuses on these communities' isolation from general society; (3) the communicative explanation, which results from the significant, prevalent information gaps in these communities as they relate to the happenings outside of the communities; (4) the normative explanation, which explains how social distancing contradicts these communities' basic norms; and (5) the authoritative explanation, which looks at the struggle between community authority and state authority. As stated above, not all illiberal religious communities share each of these characteristics, and even among those who do, they each experience these characteristics to different extents. However, these explanations, as detailed below, largely capture the characteristics of illiberal religious communities around the world. To paraphrase Tolstoy: while each community is unique, all illiberal religious communities resemble one another. (19)

Cumulatively, these explanations serve to explain the delayed responses by illiberal religious communities during the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in higher morbidity and mortality rates. (20) At the same time, this Article argues that these explanations give liberal states an opportunity to address the current tensions and better cope with future crises. The challenges outlined above, which have prevented illiberal religious communities from rapidly complying with state regulations, can, and should, be addressed in routine policy change. This Article argues that, based on these explanations, liberal states should establish a workable, inclusive, and routine relationship with illiberal religious communities to assist these communities in preparing properly for crises--particularly health-related public emergencies.

To establish such a relationship, liberal states should abandon their current normative, liberal-centric interventionist policies and instead embrace pluralistic-centric policies. In so doing, illiberal religious communities can break down the walls they are constantly building between themselves and the liberal sphere as a means to fend off normative state intervention. Ensuring illiberal religious communities a normative "state-free zone" would reduce normative interference concerns and give illiberal religious communities more exposure to important external information. A normative "state-free zone" would also decrease the role of religious radicals and their constant struggles attempting to further the spatial and social isolation of illiberal religious communities. Overcoming information gaps and reducing resistance fosters trust-building processes between illiberal religious communities and the state. The success of this process may prevent future delays in illiberal religious communities' response to health, environmental, or security threats and, therefore, reduce casualties and mortality both within and outside these communities.

This Article proceeds in five Parts. Part I describes the late response of illiberal religious communities to COVID-19 threats around the world--focusing specifically on the ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities in New York. Part II suggests five cumulative explanations for the late response of illiberal religious communities to COVID-19 threats: the hierarchical character of decision-making processes in these communities; their social and spatial characteristics; the lack of information regarding external threats, often resulting from communities' leadership struggles to control information flow; the implications of COVID-19 on the practices deeply rooted in these communities' way of life; and the constant authoritative struggle between the state and the community. Part III argues that these five explanations reinforce the understanding that to properly prepare for emergencies, liberal states should maintain a workable relationship with illiberal religious communities, and that current, liberal-centric policies held by liberal states further these communities' fortification and isolation. Part IV offers an alternative policy to...