The “times that try men’s souls” – and this is certainly one of them – accentuate the need for spiritual nourishment.

The great irony of the COVID-19 pandemic is that it keeps people from congregating in places of worship at a scary time when so many want to fall back on faith and fellowship for comfort.

Thankfully, technology can help fill the gap. Many churches are live-streaming Sunday services or otherwise finding creative ways to tend to the spiritual needs of congregants while observing social distancing guidelines.

But some faith leaders have urged worshippers to defy stay-at-home orders (none here that we know of) and attend crowded services, raising questions about what happens to our civil liberties in a time of crisis. In this case, how can government restrict the free exercise of religion?

We’re big fans of the First Amendment around here. But the rights enumerated in the First Amendment were never intended to be absolute. Over time, a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions has isolated actions or speech that aren’t protected – obscenity, defamation or falsely yelling “fire!” in a public place. Those rulings have also granted the government power to impose “time, place and manner” restrictions on speech.

As a general rule, exercising one’s rights cannot impinge on someone else’s rights, leading to balancing tests that pit the rights of the individual against the public interest.

Ideally, suppressing speech is considered wrong, but in some cases, it is necessary to restrict speech for the greater good of society. For example, we don’t allow people to assemble on Interstate 70 and shut down traffic. They have a right to demonstrate, but in a manner consistent with public safety.

For governmental entities to impose time, place, and manner restrictions, they must decide that the restrictions are content-neutral, narrowly tailored, serve a significant governmental interest, and allow for alternative methods of communication.

That’s why barring places of worship from conducting in-person services isn’t violating anyone’s First Amendment rights. A stay-at-home order is content-neutral (it applies to everyone, not just the faithful) narrowly tailored (it won’t last indefinitely) serves a significant governmental interest (limiting the spread of the virus) and allows for alternative methods of communication (live-streaming services.)

We’re not using the pandemic to make a hypothetical point. In several states, religious services and funerals have been conducted in defiance of orders, leading to significant numbers of COVID-19 cases that are directly tied to these gatherings.

The pastors cited for convening church services during a worldwide pandemic claim that the First Amendment protects them. The limits of the Free Exercise clause of the Constitution, however, have been made quite clear and they do not extend to things like human sacrifice or prison inmates’ demands for “steak on Fridays” as part of religious practice (an actual case). Nor, we are quite certain, will they extend to holding church services under roof when a highly contagious novel virus is making the rounds.

Please find your much-needed spiritual fulfillment safely. Here’s how: the Sentinel has a list of religious services in the Grand Valley that can be accessed remotely. The list can be found online on our website and in Saturday’s edition on the Faith page.