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

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

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. 

And my point is that churches, like other essential services, can be subjected to restrictions that render them safe but are less draconian than shutting them down altogether. Was Elder Bednar arguing otherwise? If so, I missed it in my reading. 

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And my point is that churches, like other essential services, can be subjected to restrictions that render them safe but are less draconian than shutting them down altogether. Was Elder Bednar arguing otherwise? If so, I missed it in my reading. 

Sorry, those restrictions don't "render them safe".  Otherwise we could designate everything as essential.  Not safe!  

Edited June 26, 2020 by pogi

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

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.  

I never argued otherwise.

You said this:

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

When I hear "immunity" and say "ever" I hear business as usual, with no change or accountability to the public / government regulation at all. So no, I am not agreeing that he is saying what you are saying he said in the way that you are reading/representing his message: that churches should be immune from lock-down -- that is a VERY different concept from what he is saying; or, that churches should be immune to regulation or operate without regulation, carte-blanche -- a VERY different concept from what he is saying also).

[pogi]

Just now, CV75 said:

When I hear "immunity" and say "ever" I hear business as usual, with no change or accountability to the public / government regulation at all. 

I was very clear.  Immunity from lock-down.  I never said that he is arguing for blanket immunity.  He is arguing that churches should have immunity from lock-down.  

What is he saying if not that?  What is "essential", if not that? 

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

Sorry, those restrictions don't "render them safe".  Otherwise we could designate everything as essential.  Not safe!  

Essential services eliminate risk to a reasonable extent, yet many essential services have had their share of clusters and outbreaks.

Which do you think is riskier, an "essential worker" priest visiting a COVID-19 patient for his last rites (let's say for 15-30 minutes), doing all he can to prevent the spread of disease, or a food processing plant doing all it can to prevent its "essential workers" at various levels of duress and motive/incentive from spreading disease during 8-12 hour shifts? How about a baptism with a maximum of ten attendees?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Thanks.

He already gives me hives.

And as far as Carte Blanche, the system thinks you are talking about this:  https://www.dinersclubus.com/home/professional-cards/profcards-l2/carte-blanche-card

 

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Essential services eliminate risk to a reasonable extent, yet many essential services have had their share of clusters and outbreaks.

Which do you think is riskier, an "essential worker" priest visiting a COVID-19 patient for his last rites (let's say for 15-30 minutes), doing all he can to prevent the spread of disease, or a food processing plant doing all it can to prevent its "essential workers" at various levels of duress and motive/incentive from spreading disease during 8-12 hour shifts? How about a baptism with a maximum of ten attendees?

Incidentally I would suggest you look up what happens in the sacrament of "Extreme Unction" or colloquially "last rites"

That word "unction" should be a clue.   I think you will find it VERY interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anointing_of_the_Sick_in_the_Catholic_Church

Quote

 

Established form[edit]

The oil used in the sacrament is usually olive oil, though other oils may also be used.[19] It is blessed by the bishop of the diocese at the Chrism Mass he celebrates on Holy Thursday or on a day close to it. In case of necessity, the priest administering the sacrament may bless the oil within the framework of the celebration.[20]

In the Roman Rite of the Latin Church, the priest anoints the sick person's forehead and hands with oil (usually in the form of a cross), saying: "Through this holy anointing, may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up." He may also, in accordance with local culture and traditions, and the needs of the sick person, anoint other parts of the body, but without repeating the sacramental formula.

This is the form established for the Roman Rite through the papal document Sacram unctionem infirmorum of 1972. The form used in the Roman Rite in the preceding period included anointing of seven parts of the body (though that of the loins was generally omitted in English-speaking countries), while saying (in Latin): "Through this holy anointing, may the Lord pardon you whatever sins/faults you have committed by... ." The sense in question was then mentioned: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, walking, carnal delectation.[21]

 

And here: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05716a.htm

Quote

 

Actual rite of administration

As administered in the Western Church today according to the rite of the Roman Ritual, the sacrament consists (apart from certain non-essential prayers) in the unction with oil, specially blessed by the bishop, of the organs of the five external senses (eyes, ears, nostrils, lips, hands), of the feet, and, for men (where the custom exists and the condition of the patient permits of his being moved), of the loins or reins; and in the following form repeated at each unction with mention of the corresponding sense or faculty: "Through this holy unction and His own most tender mercy may the Lord pardon thee whatever sins or faults thou hast committed [quidquid deliquisti] by sight [by hearing, smell, taste, touch, walking, carnal delectation]". The unction of the loins is generally, if not universally, omitted in English-speaking countries, and it is of course everywhere forbidden in case of women. To perform this rite fully takes an appreciable time, but in cases of urgent necessity, when death is likely to occur before it can be completed, it is sufficient to employ a single unction (on the forehead, for instance) with the general form: "Through this holy unction may the Lord pardon thee whatever sins or faults thou hast committed." By the decree of 25 April, 1906, the Holy Office has expressly approved of this form for cases of urgent necessity.

 

Sound familiar? 

Incidentally this is also clear evidence that women become "priests" when set apart to perform priestly functions

Edited June 26, 2020 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I was very clear.  Immunity from lock-down.  I never said that he is arguing for blanket immunity.  He is arguing that churches should have immunity from lock-down.  

What is he saying if not that?  What is "essential", if not that? 

He didn't use words like immunity, exemption, etc. in relation to religion's public obligations for being designated essential. I think that is (part of) what you are missing with your interpretation of the text.

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Essential services eliminate risk to a reasonable extent, yet many essential services have had their share of clusters and outbreaks.

Which do you think is riskier, an "essential worker" priest visiting a COVID-19 patient for his last rites (let's say for 15-30 minutes), doing all he can to prevent the spread of disease, or a food processing plant doing all it can to prevent its "essential workers" at various levels of duress and motive/incentive from spreading disease during 8-12 hour shifts? How about a baptism with a maximum of ten attendees?

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. 

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Incidentally I would suggest you look up what happens in the sacrament of "Extreme Unction" or colloquially "last rites"

That word "unction" should be a clue.   I think you will find it VERY interesting.

Yes, it is very interesting from a comparative religion standpoint. I think it could be administered in a no / low-risk manner in the face of infectious/communicable disease pandemic, though the Vatican has waived the physical aspects of the sacrament.

[CV75]

Just now, 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. 

Yes, and it is an excellent question, not because there is a universally-applicable right/wrong answer for all circumstances, but because of the speed and ease with which abuse can be perpetrated within any particular circumstance. So the answer, as he allows more than once, is "It depends." I think that is far better answer than yours!

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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. 

No, he is arguing that churches should be an essential service, not the same thing. That governments should not impose any obligations for that designation, no.

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

He didn't use words like immunity, exemption, etc. in relation to religion's public obligations for being designated essential. I think that is (part of) what you are missing with your interpretation of the text.

What you are missing from my text is that churches should not be exempt from shut-down.  

I understand that he is arguing that churches should be immune from shut down as long as they are following other safety precautions/obligations.  I disagree.  They should not be immune from shut-down, even if they are practicing social distancing and wearing masks, and cleaning surfaces, and etc. etc. etc.  Governor's have the right to shut them down in emergency.  he is wrong to try to take that right from them. 

 

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, and it is an excellent question, not because there is a universally-applicable right/wrong answer for all circumstances, but because of the speed and ease with which abuse can be perpetrated within any particular circumstance. So the answer, as he allows more than once, is "It depends." I think that is far better answer than yours

Did he say that there are circumstances in which "it depends" a church should not be allowed to gather, or not be considered essential?  CFR?

This is what I recall, yet again:

How is this not clear by now?

Quote

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

No, "it depends" there.

Quote

gathering for worship, ritual, and fellowship is essential

No, "it depends" there.

Quote

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

No, "it depends" there.

He is very clear that the right to gather is paramount and fundamental and should not be prohibited ever by religion.
 

Quote

 

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

Religious freedom is paramount among our fundamental rights. 

 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.

 

Edited June 26, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, he is arguing that churches should be an essential service, not the same thing.

Yes it is - you already agreed that essential means immune from lock-down (prohibition against gathering).  He is arguing that churches should not be prohibited from gathering.  Read the quotes above.  Read his talk,  It is CENTERED around the right to gather.

Edited June 26, 2020 by pogi

[bsjkki]

https://nypost.com/2020/06/26/if-new-york-protests-ok-so-are-outside-prayer-services-judge/

"It is not the judiciary’s role to second guess the likes of Gov. Cuomo or Mayor de Blasio when it comes to decisions they make in such troubling times, that is, until those decisions result in the curtailment of fundamental rights without compelling justification,” Northern District federal Judge Gary Sharpe wrote in a 38-page decision.

...Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio could have just as easily discouraged protests, short of condemning their message, in the name of public health and exercised discretion to suspend enforcement for public safety reasons instead of encouraging what they knew was a flagrant disregard of the outdoor limits and social distancing rules,” wrote Sharpe.

“They could have also been silent. But by acting as they did, Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio sent a clear message that mass protests are deserving of preferential treatment.”

Sharpe also said faith-based New Yorkers and their religious institutions free speech rights were trampled upon by social-distancing rules set by the state that were more severe than for secular businesses."

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

https://nypost.com/2020/06/26/if-new-york-protests-ok-so-are-outside-prayer-services-judge/

"It is not the judiciary’s role to second guess the likes of Gov. Cuomo or Mayor de Blasio when it comes to decisions they make in such troubling times, that is, until those decisions result in the curtailment of fundamental rights without compelling justification,” Northern District federal Judge Gary Sharpe wrote in a 38-page decision.

...Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio could have just as easily discouraged protests, short of condemning their message, in the name of public health and exercised discretion to suspend enforcement for public safety reasons instead of encouraging what they knew was a flagrant disregard of the outdoor limits and social distancing rules,” wrote Sharpe.

“They could have also been silent. But by acting as they did, Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio sent a clear message that mass protests are deserving of preferential treatment.”

Sharpe also said faith-based New Yorkers and their religious institutions free speech rights were trampled upon by social-distancing rules set by the state that were more severe than for secular businesses."

There’s a blatant double standard here. I’m glad the federal judge could see it. 

[MustardSeed]

Here’s what I’d love to see.  I find the church fairly Utah centered (that’s changing, but still, it seems obvious to me) so if the cases of. COVID in Utah continue to rise, come October it would be grand if the message was WEAR MASKS and stay home.  Then perhaps the “I don’t listen to govt I listen to God” will settle down.  Ugh. 

[CV75]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes it is - you already agreed that essential means immune from lock-down (prohibition against gathering).  He is arguing that churches should not be prohibited from gathering.  Read the quotes above.  Read his talk,  It is CENTERED around the right to gather.

I'm not sure how or why you are misunderstanding me,  but what you seem to interpret as my agreement with you is quite conditional and contextual. Maybe you can ask me what actually I mean on specific points if you are interested.

Of course religious expression (including gatherings large, small and intimate) should not be prohibited... without justifiable, temporary exceptions, that is. I see that covered in Elder Bednar's talk, and is, from what I can tell from his talk, what making religion an essential service entails.

Gathering for religious observance protects life for oneself and others in many ways, including self-preserving, altruistic and in the synergy of these two. Likewise, it is unwise to segregate and prioritize (some might say divide and conquer) the various protected freedoms we enjoy.

[pogi]

50 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course religious expression (including gatherings large, small and intimate) should not be prohibited... without justifiable, temporary exceptions, that is.

I 100% agree.  You just described a non-essential entity perfectly.

50 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Gathering for religious observance protects life for oneself and others in many ways, including self-preserving, altruistic and in the synergy of these two. 

I have no idea what you mean.  I think you just tried to argue that gathering in church in a deadly pandemic, when all public health experts are warning against gatherings of any size, protects life?  Did I hear you right?  I don't think that is self-preserving in the least.  That is reckless and is absolutely NOT altruistic - it is the opposite.  The altruistic thing to do would be to sacrifice and stay home for the betterment and protection of others. 

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Here’s what I’d love to see.  I find the church fairly Utah centered (that’s changing, but still, it seems obvious to me) so if the cases of. COVID in Utah continue to rise, come October it would be grand if the message was WEAR MASKS and stay home.  Then perhaps the “I don’t listen to govt I listen to God” will settle down.  Ugh. 

This is, of course, gross caricature. 

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, pogi said:

I 100% agree.  You just described a non-essential entity perfectly.

I have no idea what you mean.  I think you just tried to argue that gathering in church in a deadly pandemic, when all public health experts are warning against gatherings of any size, protects life?  Did I hear you right?  I don't think that is self-preserving in the least.  That is reckless and is absolutely NOT altruistic - it is the opposite.  The altruistic thing to do would be to sacrifice and stay home for the betterment and protection of others. 

To illustrate, I'll make a simple substitution: "Of course essential services (including gatherings large, small and intimate) should not be prohibited... without justifiable, temporary exceptions, that is." Now I can say you 100% agree with me! Life is so simple!

I can think of many essential services that can be temporarily closed or reduced in magnitude. This does not abolish their essential nature nor their live-supporting effect.

So no, you did not hear me right  Rather, you did not hear me fully, or completely.

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, CV75 said:

To illustrate, I'll make a simple substitution: "Of course essential services (including gatherings large, small and intimate) should not be prohibited... without justifiable, temporary exceptions, that is." Now I can say you 100% agree with me! Life is so simple!

I can think of many essential services that can be temporarily closed or reduced in magnitude. This does not abolish their essential nature nor their live-supporting effect.

So no, you did not hear me right  Rather, you did not hear me fully, or completely.

I heard you just fine.  I still agree with that statement (I don't see any substitution - you just repeated yourself verbatim) as it applies to non-essential businesses too.  It is very vague. 

Do you really believe that governors should never have the right or authority to decide if a church is essential, or not, in any given emergency?

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I can think of many essential services that can be temporarily closed or reduced in magnitude. This does not abolish their essential nature nor their live-supporting effect.

It seems you are using essential in the nonlegal, general, not how the government uses it sense. Pogi is using it like the government uses it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

It seems you are using essential in the nonlegal, general, not how the government uses it sense. Pogi is using it like the government uses it. 

From Wikipedia:

“‘Essential services’ may also refer to those services that are vital to the health and welfare of a population and therefore are essential to maintain even in a disaster.”

I think Elder Bednar and others might argue that religious nurturing and rescuing are vital to the welfare of a population.

The article goes on to list activities that the Department of Homeland Security gives as examples of Essential services. Among these are food and retail services. Yet we have seen that even these have been subject to some restrictions, such as limited ingress and egress, limited number of customers who can be present at a time, mandating the wearing of masks, controls at check stands to mitigate human contact, etc.