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

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

Should churches be immune from lock-down?  I agree that it is fair to discuss it, and the answer to that may vary from state to state, but for me, here in Utah, that is an easy answer.  No way.  But Elder Bednar is making accusations that constitutionally protected religious liberties have been violated in an unprecedented way and that there is no room for discussion.  "Never again" he said.  I am sorry, but no constitutionally protected rights were violated.  No, this is not unprecedented and has happened multiple times in multiple pandemics throughout history.  

Each jurisdiction has the right to decide if church is essential or not.  Elder Bednar is trying to say they don't have that right to decide.  Well, yes they do.  

He used another state for his examples (Catholic last rites, Church baptisms), perhaps with less-easy answers such as Utah. I'm seeing in the news references to New York's restrictions being overruled by a federal judge. This went on in other states also, and I recall SCOTUS weighed in on a case a few weeks ago. Each case will have its own specifics of judicially-supported violation or propriety.

A carte-blanche immunity from lockdown, ever? I don't think Elder Bednar, nor these cases, are suggesting that. I don't read "carter blanche" into his call for "Never again..." The rest of that statement shows the context, and carte blanche is not it.

Re: "unprecedented," there is also a context: "No other event in our lifetime—and perhaps no other event since the founding of this nation—has caused quite this kind of widespread disruption [more congregations and locations for worship and larger populations affected] of religious gatherings and worship." 

Edited June 26, 2020 by CV75

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

He used another state for his examples (Catholic last rites, Church baptisms), perhaps with less-easy answers such as Utah. I'm seeing in the news references to New York's restrictions being overruled by a federal judge. This went on in other states also, and I recall SCOTUS weighed in on a case a few weeks ago. Each case will have its own specifics of judicially-supported violation or propriety.

A carte-blanche immunity from lockdown, ever? I don't think Elder Bednar, nor these cases, are suggesting that. I don't read "carter blanche" into his call for "Never again..." The rest of that statement shows the context, and carte blanche is not it.

Re: "unprecedented," there is also a context: "No other event in our lifetime—and perhaps no other event since the founding of this nation—has caused quite this kind of widespread disruption [more congregations and locations for worship and larger populations affected] of religious gatherings and worship." 

First of all, his story about the last rites is highly suspicious.  Second, if he is demanding that churches be considered essential, then yes, he is asking for carte-Blanche immunity from shut-down.  If he is arguing that it is a violation of religious liberty to prohibit religions to gather as a people (which he did), then he is asking for carte-Blanche immunity from lock-downs.

His whole message surrounded around the point that gathering is protected and essential and should never be even temporarily shut-down in emergency.

Edited June 26, 2020 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

First of all, his story about the last rites is highly suspicious.  Second, if he is demanding that churches be considered essential, then yes, he is asking for carte-Blanche immunity from shut-down.  If he is arguing that it is a violation of religious liberty to prohibit religions to gather as a people (which he did), then he is asking for carte-Blanche immunity from lock-downs.

Highly suspicious to whom? That is not self-evident. To put it another way, that you personally find a thing suspicious does not make it intrinsically suspicious. 

And saying religion should be deemed as essential service is not saying carte-Blanche — any more than saying all other essential services have carte-Blanche. 
 

(Why does auto-correct insist on capitalizing blanche in carte Blanche?)

Edited June 26, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 6/25/2020 at 9:33 AM, pogi said:

 

The CDC discourages singing.  The church has not.  In Utah, the church is gathering in groups of 99 and singing together in areas where the rest of the population is limited to gathering sizes of 20.  We certainly are taking advantage of a special privilege that we should not have.  I think we started out on the right foot, but we are not being conservative anymore (at least here).

Trigger warning: Whatever you do, DO NOT visit Smac’s new “moment of beauty” thread! You’ll be apoplectic. 

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Highly suspicious to whom? That is not self-evident. 

Google it.  I have searched, many other's have searched.  We have all come up empty handed. Nothing close to it is reported.  Many people are questioning the validity of the story and think it was pulled off of Facebook or something.  There is no source.  It seems self-evident to me that a story like that - a clear violation of religious rights - would be easy to find on-line.  Everyone would be talking about it in the religious community.  The only source I can find is Elder Bednar - that to me is self-evidently suspicious.  Again, I am not saying he lied, but he might be spreading the story according to Facebook. 

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And saying religion should be deemed as essential service is not saying carte-Blanche — any more than saying all other essential services have carte-Blanche. 

Perhaps I misunderstood his intended meaning of carte-blanche.  CV75's exact words were, "carte-blanche immunity from lock down, ever?"   I though he was saying that Elder Bednar does not believe that religion should be protected against lock-down in emergency.  To, me it seems clear that he thinks religion should be immune from lock-down, and should never be prohibited from gathering. 

  

 

 

 

 

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Trigger warning: Whatever you do, DO NOT visit Smac’s new “moment of beauty” thread! You’ll be apoplectic. 

Cute

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

First of all, his story about the last rites is highly suspicious.  Second, if he is demanding that churches be considered essential, then yes, he is asking for carte-Blanche immunity from shut-down.  If he is arguing that it is a violation of religious liberty to prohibit religions to gather as a people (which he did), then he is asking for carte-Blanche immunity from lock-downs.

His whole message surrounded around the point that gathering is protected and essential and should never be even temporarily shut-down in emergency.

Gathering can be as few as Matthew 18:20 indicates, which is the case is the last rites. You can question the facts he is sharing, but the principle remains: as an essential service, allowance of religious gathering following safety restrictions is no more a carte blanche immunity than restrictions must be in the form of complete government prohibition of any religious gathering.

His whole messsage: "I am not for a moment saying that religious freedom can be unlimited in the middle of a pandemic. Nor am I saying that all government officials have disregarded religious rights..."

"What I am saying is..." I will leave the rest for you to attempt to read it from another angle than you evidently have been. I suggest that when he says, "For nearly two months, Americans and many others throughout the free world learned firsthand what it means for government to directly prohibit the free exercise of religion," it is not to say that it was always unwarranted, but evidently in some cases abused, and in any case warrants reflection and more challenge, not because it was wrong in every case, but because of the "speed and intensity with which government power was used to shut down fundamental aspects of religious exercise," again, rightly or wrongly. He does put it out there that are cases where it is warranted.

I pointed all this out pages and pages ago, days and days ago. Maybe the thread is worth a re-read!

 

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Highly suspicious to whom? That is not self-evident. To put it another way, that you personally find a thing suspicious does not make it intrinsically suspicious. 

And saying religion should be deemed as essential service is not saying carte-Blanche — any more than saying all other essential services have carte-Blanche. 
 

(Why does auto-correct insist on capitalizing blanche in carte Blanche?)

It likes "A Streetcar Named Desire..."

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, pogi said:

Google it.  I have searched, many other's have searched.  We have all come up empty handed. Nothing close to it is reported.  Many people are questioning the validity of the story and think it was pulled off of Facebook or something.  There is no source.  It seems self-evident to me that a story like that - a clear violation of religious rights - would be easy to find on-line.  Everyone would be talking about it in the religious community.  The only source I can find is Elder Bednar - that to me is self-evidently suspicious.  Again, I am not saying he lied, but he might be spreading the story according to Facebook. 

  

 

 

 

 

So because you did a Google search and turned up empty handed, it should automatically be dismissed out of hand? I suggest you never start a private detective agency. 
 

There are other possibilities. Perhaps he’s personally acquainted with the Catholic priest to whom it happened but who may have chosen not to publicize it, thus rendering it invisible to Google. 

Edited June 26, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Cute

Thanks. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I agree.  Bad choice of words.  It triggers an emotional response and people get cough up in semantics.  For example, I described a scenario earlier to someone who was upset that the church was considered non-essential.  After I described the scenario I asked if they thought it sounded fair in an emergency situation.  they agreed that the scenario was agreeable.  Well, for all intents and purposes I described a non-essential entity.  Semantics.  People can't see past it. 

Exactly!  Now you are starting to see the problem.  The answer is - no one does!  Hence the problem of self-regulating in emergency to protect the lives and health of the public. 

There are no easy answers, but you are not considering the other side of things with the suffering/death/over-run hospitals/economic consequences, of not having a controlled response.  The point is to mitigate and reduce suffering, but people are going to suffer either way, so anecdotes don't really help.  You need to see things from the big picture. 

This isn't just about protecting vulnerable populations.  It's also about protecting the integrity of our healthcare system and hospitals.  Once those are overrun, people are no longer just at risk from Covid, but they will be at risk for any medical emergency they have. 

This is from 2 days ago:

“If we continue this trend and do not abate the crisis that is going on now, we will reach capacity in the coming weeks and we will no longer be able to care appropriately for patients with COVID-19, and also those that seek care for other reasons,” said Dr. Eddie Stenehjem with Intermountain Healthcare during Tuesday’s virtual press conference on the importance of wearing a mask. “We are seeing a disturbing and quite frankly an alarming trend in COVID cases.”

https://www.ksl.com/article/46768823/health-care-officials-concerned-about-covid-19-cases-overwhelming-hospitals

If it gets to that point, do you think business are going to voluntarily label themselves as non-essential to mitigate the public health problem?  I will repeat your valid question here "Who voluntarily labels themselves “non essential”?"

If you think everyone going about life as normal is going to protect vulnerable populations who try to quarantine, you don't understand the way this virus works.  

To my bold in your comments: to a "T"! The people that don't want to shut down and want a good economy yet think wearing a mask through a mandate is stealing their freedoms, are just not understanding how doing it will gain freedom and businesses to remain open. I certainly do not want to go back to a shut down, not that Utah was really shut down like other states, such as California. What's wrong with all of us making it a goal not to be shut down, and taking these small precautions and leaving politics out. Freedom is being free of this covid-19. Which hopefully will happen when we get the vaccine. But until then I hope the freedom sayers will think of their fellowman. I have adult children that sometimes act like wearing a mask is silly too. I am around my adult children, and probably going to catch something because they act like it's no big deal. One in particular just came back from staying on a houseboat with 18 people in Lake Powell while I watched their baby girl, my granddaughter. Now I'm worried I may get it since I'm around this daughter all the time because she has me tend once a week as well. So today, I made sure to wear my mask in case I have it and symptom free for the time being. Wearing a mask is to protect others, what the heck is the problem?? I'm thankful you will most likely understand where I'm coming from, because sometimes I think I'm going crazy thinking how this is a such simple gesture and shouldn't be a problem...when others don't.

Edited June 26, 2020 by Tacenda

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Google it. 

Took me all of 2 seconds (read the whole article for context): https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-11/last-rites-coronavirus-pandemic-catholics

This may not be specific case Elder Bednar is referring to, and obviously the Vatican has permitted a substitute rite/alternatives to physical presence and touching. The question Elder Bednar is raising is, "should it have had to?" when in-person, tactile religious performances can be rendered just as safe.

[pogi]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Gathering can be as few as Matthew 18:20 indicates, which is the case is the last rites. You can question the facts he is sharing, but the principle remains: as an essential service, allowance of religious gathering following safety restrictions is no more a carte blanche immunity than restrictions must be in the form of complete government prohibition of any religious gathering.

His whole messsage: "I am not for a moment saying that religious freedom can be unlimited in the middle of a pandemic. Nor am I saying that all government officials have disregarded religious rights..."

"What I am saying is..." I will leave the rest for you to attempt to read it from another angle than you evidently have been. I suggest that when he says, "For nearly two months, Americans and many others throughout the free world learned firsthand what it means for government to directly prohibit the free exercise of religion," it is not to say that it was always unwarranted, but evidently in some cases abused, and in any case warrants reflection and more challenge, not because it was wrong in every case, but because of the "speed and intensity with which government power was used to shut down fundamental aspects of religious exercise," again, rightly or wrongly. He does put it out there that are cases where it is warranted.

I pointed all this out pages and pages ago, days and days ago. Maybe the thread is worth a re-read!

 

Where does he say there was ever a case were prohibiting a religion from gathering as a people was warranted?

Here is what he said about that:

Quote

Never again can we let religion...become ‘nonessential’

i.e. immune from lock-down

Quote

While believers and their religious organizations must be good citizens in a time of crisis, never again can we allow government officials to treat the exercise of religion as simply nonessential.

i.e immune from lock-down

Quote

 

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

 

i.e. immune from lockdown

Quote

And because gathering lies at the very heart of religion, the right to gather lies at the very heart of religious freedom

i.e. any attempt to restrict a church from gathering is a violation of religious freedom.

More stuff I think is skewing his judgment:

Quote

 

Second reflection: Religious freedom is paramount among our fundamental rights. 

This time of restriction and confinement has confirmed for me that no freedom is more important than religious freedom. 

nothing is more precious to people of faith than the freedom to worship...

In our understandable desire to combat COVID-19, we, too, as a society may have forgotten something about who we are and what is most precious.

 

No, I think right to life is paramount.  We should never place religious liberty/freedoms above the right to life.  Nothing is more precious than life.

 

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Where does he say there was ever a case were prohibiting a religion from gathering as a people was warranted?

Here is what he said about that:

i.e. immune from lock-down

i.e immune from lock-down

i.e. immune from lockdown

i.e. any attempt to restrict a church from gathering is a violation of religious freedom.

More stuff I think is skewing his judgment:

No, I think right to life is paramount.  We should never place religious liberty/freedoms above the right to life.  Nothing is more precious than life.

 

I take it you won't "attempt to read it from another angle than you evidently have been."

Defining our rights and especially their balance is a group decision--look at how the Constitution was created and has been maintained for the last 230+ years.

Edited June 26, 2020 by CV75

[pogi]

Just now, CV75 said:

Took me all of 2 seconds (read the whole article for context): https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-11/last-rites-coronavirus-pandemic-catholics

This may not be specific case Elder Bednar is referring to, and obviously the Vatican has permitted a substitute rite/alternatives to physical presence and touching. The question Elder Bednar is raising is, "should it have had to?" when in-person, tactile religious performances can be rendered just as safe.

Ya, I found that one.  Not even close.   

Here is the story:

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. 

Please find the source.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Where does he say there was ever a case were prohibiting a religion from gathering as a people was warranted?

Here is what he said about that:

i.e. immune from lock-down

i.e immune from lock-down

i.e. immune from lockdown

i.e. any attempt to restrict a church from gathering is a violation of religious freedom.

More stuff I think is skewing his judgment:

No, I think right to life is paramount.  We should never place religious liberty/freedoms above the right to life.  Nothing is more precious than life.

 

To the bold again...I wonder if a lot of LDS don't care if we die, because we'll be in a better place. Because I don't understand the logic of Elder Bednar at all concerning this.

[pogi]

Just now, CV75 said:

I take it you won't "attempt to read it from another angle than you evidently have been."

Are you seriously trying to argue that he doesn't think church should be immune from lock-down in emergency?  That is partly what "essential" means in emergency. 

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ya, I found that one.  Not even close.   

Here is the story:

Please find the source.

I think it would be easy for Deseret News of the Salt Lake Tribune to do an investigative report on that.

It is close, though, and his comments and conclusions (which are paramount for this discussion) fit with the whole of the report.

[CV75]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Are you seriously trying to argue that he doesn't think church should be immune from lock-down in emergency?  That is partly what "essential" means in emergency. 

Not in the extreme way you seem to be portraying it, nor the extreme meaning you are attaching to "essential" as you understand it for Utah.

[pogi]

Just now, CV75 said:

I think it would be easy for Deseret News of the Salt Lake Tribune to do an investigative report on that.

Hit them up. 

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

It is close, though, and his comments and conclusions (which are paramount for this discussion) fit with the whole of the report.

It is not even close.  The story you linked to was a victory story for religion in the face of a seemingly impossible situation. Religion found a way and wins!  Elder Bednar, however framed this as a defeat for religion, a violation of religious rights/rites, and claims that it wasn't allowed to be performed with a person that did not even have Covid.  BIG difference. 

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not in the extreme way you seem to be portraying it, nor the extreme meaning you are attaching to "essential" as you understand it for Utah.

Can you show me a state that makes essential entities close in lock-down?  What is the point in designating them as essential, if not to keep them open and running?

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Can you show me a state that makes essential entities close in lock-down?  What is the point in designating them as essential, if not to keep them open and running?

Keeping them open and running does not mean they are without restrictions. The shop where I had my car serviced last week is deemed an essential service (a placard on the counter makes that clear). But the guy who rang up my purchase wore a mask and avoided having me sign the credit card reader by simply drawing a line across the signature space. 

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Keeping them open and running does not mean they are without restrictions. 

I never argued otherwise. 

My point is that governments should have the ability to prohibit churches from gathering if deemed in the best interest of public health in emergency.  Elder Bednar is arguing that they should not have that power to restrict churches from gathering.  Well, they do and they should. 

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Can you show me a state that makes essential entities close in lock-down?  What is the point in designating them as essential, if not to keep them open and running?

This is obviously getting repetitive for the sake of addressing distortions.

Essential entities stay open during lock-down, often under agreed-upon safety measures to prevent closure due to non-compliance or to address an outbreak or cluster. They are not immune to regulation or operate without regulation, carte-blanche.

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Essential entities stay open during lock-down

Thank you!  I am not crazy!  He is saying that churches should be immune from lock-down.  That is ALL I have been arguing.  Elder Bednar is wrong.  They should not be immune in that way, nor are they.  

Quote

They are not immune to regulation or operate without regulation, carte-blanche.

I never argued otherwise.

You said this:

Quote

A carte-blanche immunity from lockdown, ever? I don't think Elder Bednar, nor these cases, are suggesting that.

Now you are agreeing that he is saying that.  Thanks for conceding. 

Edited June 26, 2020 by pogi