Regarding this latest decision by the US Supreme Court.State lawmakers have tended to view churches in how they are used, while religious leaders view them from subjective importance.The typical church experience consists of sitting in close proximity to others for extended periods while repeating prayers, often in a call and response ritual. In this way they are more similar to theaters and arenas – places where the spread of airborne diseases is greatly increased.And while many churches recognize this and hold there services virtually, others equate the in-person religious experience to be a necessity akin to food and medicine. Thus they compare the church to grocery stores and pharmacies.But people use grocery stores and pharmacies much differently. People tend to get in and out of those latter places as quickly as possible and with as little interaction with others as possible.That millions of people have survived just fine without church for decades but couldn’t survive for even a small fraction of that time without food or medicine seems to prove that the church experience is not a necessity, regardless of how much importance people claim it has. Like going to the movies or to see a basketball game, the necessity of attending a house of worship is hard to argue for from a use standpoint.And when you see religious institutions argue for conduct that has been shown to promote the spread of this virus – even though many others are not – I cannot help but suspect that what they are after is control over parishioners and access to their purses. At the heart of this may be nothing more than keeping their religious power over people, even to their detriment.