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

[Calm]

The Church stopped baptisms for awhile, correct?  On their own, church wide?

 It could have fallen under the category of any church meeting, because of the way we think of it.  Members gather to welcome other members. 
 

The claim as presented though makes it appear he was saying if a family got permission from the bishop and held a baptism in their backyard pool, would the government have banned that?

Or even the family going to the local church with a font and performing it there. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

That is quite terrible if true. Last rites are very important -- they are one of the 7 sacraments -- and it seems like risk of infection was minimal. That situation seems like a pointed attack on religion and perhaps even Catholicism specifically, if there's not more to the story.

My diocese was one of the first to open up, back in mid-April (it made national news). It was small, no more than 5 people in a church at a time, and our Bishop still offered dispensation to remain at home and watch online. He also authorized outdoor Masses in church parking lots, with cars in every other spot and an impromptu altar built. I thought he did a good job of balancing religious needs, health needs, and individual choice.

I don’t have to be Catholic to understand that last rites are very important in your faith. When they can be performed under safe conditions, no government should infringe on them, NOT EVEN IN A PANDEMIC. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Church stopped baptisms for awhile, correct?  On their own, church wide?

 It could have fallen under the category of any church meeting, because of the way we think of it.  Members gather to welcome other members. 
 

The claim as presented though makes it appear he was saying if a family got permission from the bishop and held a baptism in their backyard pool, would the government have banned that?

Or even the family going to the local church with a font and performing it there. 

As has been discussed here previously, a baptism in the Church of Jesus Christ can be performed with as few as four individuals involved. If it’s the baptism of an 8-year-old, all four participants could conceivably be members of the same household. The bishop or his counselors wouldn’t even have to be there if he had given authorization in advance. It’s like the sacrament in that respect. 
 

Elder Bednar did say the services were banned even when they could have been conducted under the safest of conditions. I believe he spoke the truth. In a panic, reason seems to fly away. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

In searching for this story, I found that this is being discussed on reddit.  Apparently, I am not the only one that thought this sounded  off.

I personally don’t think that Elder Bednar would lie about this, but I wonder if he got this off Facebook or something.  

 

Elder Bednar was citing examples to illustrate a point. It is not incumbent upon him to dox or heap blame upon a state or its governing officers. If you disbelieve him, you are free to reject his claim or try to rebut it with additional information if you can. 
 

For now, though, the point has been made, and that is sufficient to the moment. 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

now, though, the point has been made, and that is sufficient to the moment. 

The point hasn’t been made if not accurate though. 
 

I am not claiming he is lying, but I think it would be helpful to know the specifics of the case. Too easy to dismiss it as fear mongering without details. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

The point hasn’t been made if not accurate though. 
 

I am not claiming he is lying, but I think it would be helpful to know the specifics of the case. Too easy to dismiss it as fear mongering without details. 

It’s also too easy to cast doubt on it through innuendo without substantiation.  
 

If Elder Bednar had as his purpose to call out a specific governor or other elected or appointed official for blame, I might agree that it would be incumbent upon him to provide documentation and evidence. That was not his purpose insofar as I can tell. He has cited an example pursuant to illustrating his point that constitutional liberties can too easily be infringed upon in the stress-bordering-on-panic that attends a pandemic or other crisis. 

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

The point hasn’t been made if not accurate though. 
 

I am not claiming he is lying, but I think it would be helpful to know the specifics of the case. Too easy to dismiss it as fear mongering without details. 

Exactly. If it's not an example of common knowledge already verified, we should let the point hang in the air, unmade.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s also too easy to cast doubt on it through innuendo without substantiation.  

How can you provide substantiation when details are too vague?

[Calm]

I am wondering if the last rites example was about no non medical personnel in hospitals besides patients. I know family members were barred in places even when a patient was there for something else leading to complaints of poor quality of care as family can often provide the attention needed when nurses are floating between patients. 
 

No visitors allowed in a hospital would be a very different situation than a specific ban on performing last rites. 
 

Quote

For example, the orders of one state barred Catholic priests from anointing a parishioner with holy oil in the performance of last rites—even if the person was not sick with COVID-19, even if the priest and parishioner were protected with masks and gloves, and even if the oil was applied with a swab. In the same state, my Church could not perform baptisms even under the safest of conditions.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-11/last-rites-coronavirus-pandemic-catholics
 

Quote

In much of the country, hospitals, including Catholic ones, have decided it is too risky for priests to give the sacrament to those ill from the highly contagious virus. Some have told chaplains to stay away from the hospital and have ended spiritual “rounding” — or paying visits to patients room by room — as part of the effort to reduce spread of the virus.

In other places, the sacrament continues, but with alterations that might make it hard to recognize.

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

I have not been able to find any cases where last rites were not allowed except for hospitals. 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I am wondering if the last rites example was about no non medical personnel in hospitals besides patients. I know family members were barred in places even when a patient was there for something else leading to complaints of poor quality of care as family can often provide the attention needed when nurses are floating between patients. 
 

No visitors allowed in a hospital would be a very different situation than a specific ban on performing last rites. 
 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-11/last-rites-coronavirus-pandemic-catholics
 

I posted this same article earlier.  Even in strict isolation in a hospital, modifications were made to make the rites possible.  The Pope made a way for it to happen.  I could not find a single case where a patient in isolation was not able to have the rite performed, let alone a person who did not have Covid.  

Edited June 20, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Elder Bednar was citing examples to illustrate a point. It is not incumbent upon him to dox or heap blame upon a state or its governing officers. If you disbelieve him, you are free to reject his claim or try to rebut it with additional information if you can. 
 

For now, though, the point has been made, and that is sufficient to the moment. 

It is incumbent upon him to substantiate the story if he wants the point to stand.  If he doesn’t want to dox a state or governor, then don’t bring up the story in the first place.  But, if his point is to influence change, then we kind of need to know which state to make changes in, as this is clearly an isolated incident (if true) and not a systemic problem.  If you can’t, or won’t back up a claim, then don’t state it.  There is no point to it as we can’t make any changes if we can’t see the problem.

To scream “FIRE, FIRE!” in warning, and subsequently fail to tell us where the fire is when we can’t see the fire or even smell the smoke, has NO POINT other than to illicit fear.  We don’t know where to throw the water. No need to rile up the troops to battle if you won’t tell us where the battle is.  It borders fear mongering.

Edited June 20, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

 I could not find a single case where a patient in isolation was not able to have the rite performed, let alone a person who did not have Covid.  

I should only read at night when I can concentrate and ensure I read everything and not skip stuff due to interruptions. I remembered you looking and finding nothing relevant, but apparently I didn’t read the article so that didn’t register. 
 

 I can see it maybe happening broadly across a hospital in the very beginning when they were so concerned about contagion.  But it sounds like adaptations were quickly made. 
 

I read another article where a priest was snuck in, given protective gear (a nono), allowed a minute or less iirc, and when he left threw away his shoes. 
But that was for Covid. 

There was another article describing what came across as almost a wartime feel, patients struggling to breathe getting up and then collapsing, bodies placed in bags still warm, pretty graphic stuff. Anyone thinking just the flu should read it. I don’t know the quality of the media though, New York Daily Post iirc. I can find it again. Anyway, it has just a brief comment “no last rites” to demonstrate what a overwhelming press it was.  Doesn’t say about rest of hospital or if it was a state rule rather than hospital. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

he doesn’t want to dox a state or governor, then don’t bring up the story in the first place.

Especially as I understand this, this type of restriction is an issue at the state level, not the federal. 

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Elder Bednar was citing examples to illustrate a point. It is not incumbent upon him to dox or heap blame upon a state or its governing officers. If you disbelieve him, you are free to reject his claim or try to rebut it with additional information if you can. 
 

For now, though, the point has been made, and that is sufficient to the moment. 

Seems like you have a misunderstanding of what doxing is.  Naming a state that publicly attempts to stop Churches from performing rites is not doxing.  It's not even close.  A state is not even an individual in order to dox, and there is nothing private about it's affairs.

[USU78]

Koramatsu v US: Another example of crisis usurpation of Bill of Rights Biggie's, confirmed legal by scotus, never overturned. We should be concerned.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Koramatsu v US: 

Details please on why you see this as relevant today...are you providing support for systematic racism showing inequal treatment by police and government based on race?

Edited June 20, 2020 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

No visitors allowed in a hospital would be a very different situation than a specific ban on performing last rites.

Thank you. 
 

Also, in Bednars talk, it “seems” as though he is blaming government for the fact that conference had to be held differently than it ever has.  1. Was anyone really put out by the altered conference? 2. Was it the government or wasn’t it the church who made that call ? Wasn’t the church very proactive (wisely so imo) before government restrictions occurred? 
 

Again, I don’t like it, not at all.  It’s alarmist, it’s unsettling, it’s got undertones of anti government, and it’s (I’ll say it) paranoid, IMO.  Of course government has enough power to shut us down on a whim .  It always has, always will.  
will they though? 
my husband has power to strangle me in my sleep.  Shall I make a video of that too? 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

never overturned.

Quote

Chief Justice Roberts, in writing the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii, stated in obiter dictum that Korematsu v. United States was wrongly decided, essentially disavowing the decision and indicating that a majority of the court no longer finds Korematsu persuasive.^{[34]:38[better source needed]} Quoting Justice Robert H. Jackson's dissent from Korematsu, the Chief Justice stated:

The dissent's reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—'has no place in law under the Constitution.'

— Trump v. Hawaii, slip op. at 38 (quoting 323 U.S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting))^[34]:38

Roberts also added: "The forcible relocation of U.S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority."^{[34]:38[35][16]}

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

Appears to have been in essence overruled as this decision could be referenced anytime it is appealed to. Seems like they would have to start from scratch to justify it. 
 

Great example of government approved and supported racism though and supports the urgency imo to remove systematic racism from our culture as much as possible. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Calm

[USU78]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Details please on why you see this as relevant today...are you providing support for systematic racism showing inequal treatment by police and government based on race?

I would have thought it was well enough known not to need elaboration.

Japan sneak attacks the US in Hawaii. US fleet largely incapacitated. Significant Japanese U-Boot traffic along Pacific coast of US. Significant ethnic Japanese presence along Pacific coast. Some evidence of spying/collaboration by some few ethnic Japanese US residents/citizens.

Some panic among Californians. Serious concerns among military. FDR orders all ethnic Japanese in Pacific coast states into camps an d their property confiscated without due process in violation if Vth Amendment rights. Scotus later confirms action taken legal under war powers clause.

To sum up: Arguable emergency + panic + violation of constitutional rights by government + courts with history of supporting such violations on specious grounds = justification for bland expressions of concern by Elder Bednar without hair on fire expressions of panic and buildings/autos/statues/people being attacked.

[USU78]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

Appears to have been in essence overruled as this decision could be referenced anytime it is appealed to. Seems like they would have to start from scratch to justify it. 
 

Great example of government approved and supported racism though and supports the urgency imo to remove systematic racism from our culture as much as possible. 

Dictum is meaningless unless a subsequent ruling with actual legal effect upholds the dictum.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Dictum is meaningless unless a subsequent ruling with actual legal effect upholds the dictum.

Good to know.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I would have thought it was well enough known not to need elaboration.

If you had used it as support for going after systemic racism leading to imprisonment based false fearmongering reports and skin color/racial background.

Not seeing an obvious tie-in to banning of religious practices though.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I am wondering if the last rites example was about no non medical personnel in hospitals besides patients. I know family members were barred in places even when a patient was there for something else leading to complaints of poor quality of care as family can often provide the attention needed when nurses are floating between patients. 
 

No visitors allowed in a hospital would be a very different situation than a specific ban on performing last rites. 
 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-11/last-rites-coronavirus-pandemic-catholics
 

 

Elder Bednar was explicit: The ban was imposed even if the dying patient was not sick with COVID, even if both priest and parishioner wore masks and even if the oil was to be applied with a swab. 
 

Even if there was a blanket no-visitors policy at the hospital, an exception should have been made for administration of last rites for a non-COVID patient — an essential service — albeit under strictly controlled conditions. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Amulek]

23 hours ago, pogi said:

This would only be true if literally every non-religious gathering were equally treated more favorably than religious gatherings.  It would be nearly impossible to prove religious discrimination if restaurants are favored above dance-clubs, social clubs, movie theaters, swimming pools, bowling allies, etc., etc. etc.,...and churches.  Can you demonstrate that all non-religious entities are favored above religious entities?  That religious entities are being singled out?

Only that's not how it works. It's still religious discrimination even if it just so happens to be the case that the government is discriminating against a bunch of other entities as well.

If a business owner refused to serve Mormons, women, and blacks he would still be considered to be discriminating on the basis of religion even though he was discriminating against other groups as well. 

 

Quote

Quite frankly, it is stupid of them to base this on percentage of capacity. That is absolutely stupid and dangerous as max capacity can be extremely high, [...]

I'm with you there. Still, that's how lots of jurisdictions have decided to proceed. I remember pulling into a gas station a while back, right when they were starting to open things up, and I saw a sign by the entrance indicating that no more than 35 people could be in the store at one time. That seemed like a ridiculous number of people to allow in a space of that size. 

 

Quote

[...] but in no way can this be seen as religious discrimination.  In fact, I see churches as being highly favored here.  Does anyone know what maximum capacity is for most LDS chapels?   It is extremely rare to see restaurants with that kind of capacity, I would imagine.  This is not counting the mega-churches in Washington with regular attendance of over 2,000 (with much higher "max capacity").  This is not counting religious conferences with many, many thousands.   Churches, based on those percentages, will likely see much larger gatherings in Washington than restaurants. 

The disparity is that churches are subjected to a 50 person hard cap, regardless of how much space they have to accommodate more people while maintaining social distancing. So, if you happen to be Overlake Christian Church which has the capacity of seating 4,987 people in your worship center (link) - well, too bad. You are limited to 50 people tops, regardless of how much room you have got. 

The sports bar down the street isn't subject to that limitation.

So you can go out drinking with your buddies all night long on trivia night, but heaven forefend we let churches open their doors in a similar way the next morning. 

 

Quote

Thank you for acknowledging that is wrong, but why not the same level of outrage towards non-religious discrimination, demanding equal treatment?  If roles were reversed, you would not say I would be "fine..."  I don't think that is the language you would use. 

Sorry, that's just how I feel.

If the government is giving preferential treatment to religious gatherings while failing to treat similar gatherings at taverns, brothels, and adult film production studios equally then yeah - I will agree that such disparate treatment is unconstitutional. And I will argue that comparable groups ought to be treated equally.

But yes, at the end of the day, I freely admit that I care more about religious freedom than I do about whore houses, sports bars, restaurants, and retail stores in general. 

 

Quote

Again, that is a false dichotomy.  It is not religionists vs protesters.  It is protesters vs all other entities (including non-religious entities).  Protesters are getting special treatment above ALL other entities, not just religionists.  You are framing this out to appear as religious persecution and discrimination.  That is nonsense!  Many of those protesters are religionists too by-the-way.  Many church groups gathered in protest.  They weren’t singled out and arrested or fined for gathering as a religious group.

Again, it's still discrimination even when other groups are being discriminated against as well. If those other groups want to point out that the government is playing favorites with the protesters over their group as well, they are free to do so (and to seek action accordingly). 

 

Quote

Yes, potentially violent situations with property damage, rules change in order to mitigate and deescalate the situation.  There has to be leeway in situations like this.   For example, if this same thing happened, except it was religionists protesting police brutality against, and things started getting out-of-hand, I guarantee the same measures would have been taken.  This is not discrimination against religionists.  Religionists are not being singled out here.  This all feels like persecution syndrome to me.  There is no substance to it whatsoever.   I fully support police measures taken (regardless if the group were religionists or not).  Anything more could have ended terribly. 

I honestly have my doubts about the exact same thing happening if religionists were the bad actors - especially if they happened to be Muslim. Still, my point is that giving in to bad actors only creates an incentive for other groups of bad actors to do the same. That seems like a bad road to go down long-term.