Preserving Religious Freedom in Time of Crisis: Remarks by Elder Bednar

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

Because we can trust churches more with the power to protect public health?  We have never seen any church abuses in this pandemic, right?

When politicians abuse the constitution, we uphold the constitution in court, we don’t strip them of their rights.

When citizens display a propensity to abuse their rights, do we strip all citizens of their rights?  That is madness!
 

So you’re OK with courts holding public  officials in check, but you don’t like lawmaking bodies doing it. So much for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No fair-minded person approves of churches abusing power, and when it happens, they should be held to account. But the Bill of Rights grants to each of us the free exercise of religion, and it is proper for Elder Bednar to urge us to be vigilant in defending that right. 

Let me get this straight, instead of holding specific governors accountable, we should strip them all of their rights, but with religion it is the opposite?  No double standard there!

The governors have protected rights too.  The free exercise of religion is not unlimited, and governors were within their rights in deeming churches as non essential. They acted within their rights.

Edited June 28, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you’re OK with courts holding public  officials in check, but you don’t like lawmaking bodies doing it. So much for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 

I don’t know what you are talking about.  It is not the role of legislators to make sure public officials are obeying the law.  That is the role of the judicial branch.  No point in making redundant laws.

[california boy]

I wonder when the idea that religion can do whatever it wants, even if it endangers people's lives crept into the thinking of some Americans?  I know this idea has been tried in the past such as claiming Christian's rights to hold slaves and to not serve blacks in their restaurants.  But I thought that the courts have been pretty clear that religion still has to follow the rule of law.  And in most states, the governor has a legal right to order prudent measures to protect public safety.  And thank God he does.  Just think what would have happened if the government could not take any action to control this pandemic.  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree with that.  Elder Bednar is suggesting that they shouldn’t have the right or the power however.  That is what I disagree with.

No, he said, "Government power can never be unlimited," and that would apply to governors treatment of faith groups in their executive orders.

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, he said, "Government power can never be unlimited," and that would apply to governors treatment of faith groups in their executive orders.

Oh, is that all he said? 

I feel like you are just messing with me now.

never again can we allow government officials to treat the exercise of religion as simply nonessential

Edited June 28, 2020 by pogi

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

Oh, is that all he said? 

I feel like you are just messing with me now.

never again can we allow government officials to treat the exercise of religion as simply nonessential

Sorry you feel that way. He said a lot of things, but none of them entail government having zero power; rather, that governments should not have unlimited power.

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Sorry you feel that way. He said a lot of things, but none of them entail government having zero power; rather, that governments should not have unlimited power.

Now you are setting up a straw man.  Re-read my question + Re-read his words = Bednar does not think governors should have the right to decide if they are essential or not in any given emergency.

Im done

Edited June 28, 2020 by pogi

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

Now you are setting up a straw man.  Re-read my question + Re-read his words = Bednar does not think governors should have the right to decide if they are essential or not in any given emergency.

Im done

Sorry, I'm not following your logic.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Sorry, I'm not following your logic.

Bednar has stated churches should always be defined as essential in emergency situations, correct?  And you agree with him, correct?

[alter idem]

On 6/26/2020 at 3:54 PM, pogi said:

Trust me, I have seen many, many, many, many outbreaks in essential businesses. 

The question that Elder Bednar raises is if churches should be prohibited from gathering for worship on Sundays during an emergency pandemic.  The answer is yes.  Yes, they should. 

So, this boils down to,  you disagree with Elder Bednar. 

[pogi]

4 hours ago, alter idem said:

So, this boils down to,  you disagree with Elder Bednar. 

I do disagree.  But I am also very upset and disappointed.  I think his talk is dangerous.

Edited June 29, 2020 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Bednar has stated churches should always be defined as essential in emergency situations, correct?  And you agree with him, correct?

Would you please post Elder Bernard's statement (maybe the whole paragraph for context)? Thank you.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Would you please post Elder Bernard's statement (maybe the whole paragraph for context)? Thank you.

Hasn’t it been done enough?  This is what I am interpreting that way:  

Quote

never again can we allow government officials to treat the exercise of religion as simply nonessential

If you disagree with that interpretation, then just say, no you are not correct. I was just trying to find out what you believed he was saying.  Not arguing.

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Bednar has stated churches should always be defined as essential in emergency situations, correct?  And you agree with him, correct?

If constitutional rights disappear during emergencies, what’s the point of having governments to protect them?

The church has shown it’s able to act responsibly, and do so without government mandates—in fact before the lockdowns, there was evidence that people were voluntarily avoiding crowded spaces and social distancing.  Most people, when given the information, will govern themselves responsibly.  We’ve heard that before...Tyranny, the kind that Joseph Smith was accused of at Nauvoo, is when you believe people are not capable of being responsible, and must be forced to do the right thing.

 

 

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hasn’t it been done enough?  This is what I am interpreting that way:  

If you disagree with that interpretation, then just say, no you are not correct. I was just trying to find out what you believed he was saying.  Not arguing.

I asked because I thought I might be missing something. I appreciate your open-mindedness and encouragement to be more thorough in my posts.

Yes, I disagree that "never again can we allow government officials to treat the exercise of religion as simply nonessential" in essence means "churches should always be defined as essential in emergency situations." I do not think Elder Bednar means to say, in essence, that "churches should always be defined as essential in emergency situations."

Here are occassion where he uses "essential":

"COVID-19 has alerted us to our dependence upon foreign nations for many of our essential medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, and a wide variety of other strategically important products."

"...for most faith communities, gathering for worship, ritual, and fellowship is essential; it is not merely an enjoyable social activity."

"We believe that such a gathering is essential before the Messiah returns again."

"Despite COVID-19 risks, North American jurisdictions declared as essential numerous services related to alcohol, animals, marijuana, and other concerns. But often religious organizations and their services were simply deemed nonessential, even when their activities could be conducted safely."

"I also believe we must always remember a second essential principle: namely, policy makers, even in a crisis, should limit the exercise of religion only when it truly is necessary to preserve public health and safety."

Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with the notion that "churches should always be defined as essential in emergency situations" -- and this not Elder Bednar's quote, but a line taken from this series of posts; I do not know offhand who said it first -- as long as the other conditions I posted here apply:  Posted 11 hours ago (edited) But I don't see/interpret/read Elder Bednar suggesting/saying/intending/meaning that in any of his comments. At the very least the consideration warrants more attention than it evidently has been given in some cases /jurisdictions and in light of the ease and speed with which churches can be overlooked or denied that status.

[USU78]

18 minutes ago, SteveO said:

If constitutional rights disappear during emergencies, what’s the point of having governments to protect them?

The church has shown it’s able to act responsibly, and do so without government mandates—in fact before the lockdowns, there was evidence that people were voluntarily avoiding crowded spaces and social distancing.  Most people, when given the information, will govern themselves responsibly.  We’ve heard that before...Tyranny, the kind that Joseph Smith was accused of at Nauvoo, is when you believe people are not capable of being responsible, and must be forced to do the right thing.

Thanks for that. I am terrified by the implications of grasping, tyrannical authority in few hands, often unelected.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

If constitutional rights disappear during emergencies, what’s the point of having governments to protect them

To restore them afterwards.  Are all our constitutional rights intact in every sort of emergency?  Serious question.  War, earthquakes, hurricanes, pandemics, riots...are there no limitations applied during any of these?

Then there is the debate over what exactly are our constitutional rights. 
 

Quote

The church has shown it’s able to act responsibly, and do so without government mandates—in fact before the lockdowns, there was evidence that people were voluntarily avoiding crowded spaces and social distancing.  Most people, when given the information, will govern themselves responsibly. 

But have all churches?  And for those acting irresponsibly or who think being responsible (I highly doubt those not wearing masks think they are being irresponsible) isn’t the same standard as others’ views, what would you suggest?

Edited June 29, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I disagree that...

Thank you for the clarification.

[SteveO]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

To restore them afterwards.  Are all our constitutional rights intact in every sort of emergency?  Serious question.  War, earthquakes, hurricanes, pandemics, riots...are there no limitations applied during any of these?

Then there is the debate over what exactly are our constitutional rights. 

Explain to me why Japanese Internment camps were wrong. 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Explain to me why Japanese Internment camps were wrong. 

Are you not going to answer my question because you don’t know or don’t want to?

That is okay, but I don’t see the need to play games when all I wanted was a simple answer.  I will do the research myself. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Calm

[SteveO]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

But have all churches?  And for those acting irresponsibly or who think being responsible (I highly doubt those not wearing masks think they are being irresponsible) isn’t the same standard as others’ views, what would you suggest?

Calm, whose fault is it that there are people out there thinking they aren’t being irresponsible for not wearing masks?  I said that you have to give people the information and let them govern themselves.  Not lie to them because you don’t trust them, as the “experts” initially did.

Under no circumstances are rights to be curtailed or suspended for any reason.  That is the price, and risk, we take for living in a free society.
 

All it takes is one time for an individual or government to refuse the laying down of emergency powers.  You may not get a Lincoln next time the writ of habeas corpus Gets suspended.
 

Edited June 29, 2020 by SteveO

[SteveO]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you not going to answer my question because you don’t know or don’t want to?

That is okay, but I don’t see the need to play games when all I wanted was a simple answer.  I will do the research myself. 

Not playing games Calm, it’s a very relevant question.  WWII was the greatest cataclysm in human history.  We were attacked.  We didn’t know if there were spies and/or informants working amongst the Japanese community.  
 

Did we not restore their rights, as you suggested, after the crisis was over?

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Explain to me why Japanese Internment camps were wrong. 

Because it was blatant discrimination.  

Can you prove discrimination against a protected class in the shutdowns?  

13 minutes ago, SteveO said:

.Under no circumstances are rights to be curtailed or suspended for any reason.  .

The law disagrees with you.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, SteveO said:

 

Under no circumstances are rights to be curtailed or suspended for any reason.  That is the price, and risk, we take for living in a free society.

Martial law is not against the Constitution or otherwise illegal in the States, however. So isn’t it potentially possible for rights, at least some of them (such as when no civil courts are open) could be curtailed?

Nothing I am reading says it can’t legally happen, just that times it was declared appropriately or not are rare occurrences so far statewise and only once federally.