Calm Posted June 27, 2020 Posted June 27, 2020 30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: think Elder Bednar and others might argue that religious nurturing and rescuing are vital to the welfare of a population. I am not talking about them, but how I read CV and Pogi and their conversation with each other. Pogi has stated how he is using it. I am assuming CV is using it in a more general way because of his comments. If he isn’t, I am confused with what he is attempting to say. 1
CV75 Posted June 27, 2020 Posted June 27, 2020 2 hours ago, pogi said: 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? 1 hour 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. The definition by governors and governments vary from place to place, as does the level of restriction that can be applied to yes, even essential services. Elder Bednar seems to be using it as the basic commonalities among these definitions might exist anywhere, and this is how I've been discussing it. 1
pogi Posted June 27, 2020 Posted June 27, 2020 5 minutes ago, CV75 said: The definition by governors and governments vary from place to place, as does the level of restriction that can be applied to yes, even essential services. Elder Bednar seems to be using it as the basic commonalities among these definitions might exist anywhere, and this is how I've been discussing it. Will you answer my question?
CV75 Posted June 27, 2020 Posted June 27, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, pogi said: Will you answer my question? I have been answering all of your questions. But I will try another way: Essential service /business designation is typically given in accordance with specific response needs to a declared emergency, with attendant requirements for continued operation. Governors have the right and responsibility to make that designation, typically informed by their expert advisors, religious interests included. The kind of emergency would drive the decision as to whether faith groups warrant (a) essential service designation with attendant responsibilities; or (b) restriction waivers for faith groups over concerns about religious freedom. In a pandemic emergency, "a" is a lot safer for the public health than "b" when it comes to gathering. I'm ignoring "c" which might be essential service designation for faith groups with waivers from general or comparable essential service / business restrictions. But in a jurisdiction where "essential" status is proactively granted irrespective of a declared emergency, I would support faith groups being given that designation, with case-by-case definition of what constitutes categorical essential activity for all designated entities under a specific declared emergency. Edited June 27, 2020 by CV75 1
pogi Posted June 27, 2020 Posted June 27, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, CV75 said: I have been answering all of your questions. But I will try another way: Essential service /business designation is typically given in accordance with specific response needs to a declared emergency, with attendant requirements for continued operation. Governors have the right and responsibility to make that designation, typically informed by their expert advisors. The kind of emergency would drive the decision as to whether faith groups warrant (a) essential service designation with attendant responsibilities; or (b) restriction waivers for faith groups over concerns about religious freedom. In a pandemic emergency, "a" is a lot safer for the public health than "b" when it comes to gathering. "c" might be essential service designation for faith groups with waivers from general or comparable essential service / business restrictions, but that doesn't make much sense (to me). Simple yes or no will suffice. Are you agreeing that there may be conditions in which a governor could/would rightly designate faith groups as non-essential? Because it appears to me that is what you are saying. You seem to be saying that governors do indeed have the right and responsibility to make the decision "as to whether faith groups warrant an essential service designation" or not. Edited June 27, 2020 by pogi
CV75 Posted June 27, 2020 Posted June 27, 2020 1 minute ago, pogi said: Simple yes or no will suffice. Are you saying that there may be conditions in which a governor could/would rightly designate faith groups as non-essential, or not? So I guess I answered your question in a way that you agree with me. Elder Bednar was speaking of "essential" and so let's keep it on that particular topic. Non-essential typically refers to recreation, so relegating faith groups to that status would be quite telling (and off-topic).
pogi Posted June 27, 2020 Posted June 27, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, CV75 said: So I guess I answered your question in a way that you agree with me. Elder Bednar was speaking of "essential" and so let's keep it on that particular topic. Non-essential typically refers to recreation, so relegating faith groups to that status would be quite telling (and off-topic). I am keeping it on that topic. Enough dancing around. Yes or no. Should governor's have that right or not? That is the question Elder Bednar raises. Be direct. I don't even know what you are saying or mean half the time. Just answer the question. Yes or no. Its not hard. Edited June 27, 2020 by pogi
Calm Posted June 27, 2020 Posted June 27, 2020 (edited) CV, I enjoy your posts in general quite a bit, but sometimes you do choose to use a lot of words, which I assume you do because you want to be precise. And often this works well imo. But it can have also at times have the opposite effect and be confusing. In this case, simpler is better because you are really confusing me and I am guessing from pogi's reaction, I am not the only one. I would suggest just dealing with whether the governors should have the right first and then once that is clearly established, in another post deal with specific or general limitations and cases. Edited June 27, 2020 by Calm 1
MustardSeed Posted June 27, 2020 Posted June 27, 2020 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: This is, of course, gross caricature. Not in my area it’s not. I’ve heard this said quite a bit. It’s alarming, which is why I’m commenting.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 28, 2020 Author Posted June 28, 2020 5 hours ago, MustardSeed said: Not in my area it’s not. I’ve heard this said quite a bit. It’s alarming, which is why I’m commenting. So you’ve heard people in your area explicitly say, “I don’t listen to government, I listen to God”? People of all faiths or just Latter-day Saints? If the latter, I’m wondering how it would have come up, since our church’s leaders have been nothing but cooperative with government health measures and regulations. This presupposes there would have been a pandemic-related conflict between the government and the Church. As yet, I’ve seen none.
MustardSeed Posted June 28, 2020 Posted June 28, 2020 54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So you’ve heard people in your area explicitly say, “I don’t listen to government, I listen to God”? People of all faiths or just Latter-day Saints? If the latter, I’m wondering how it would have come up, since our church’s leaders have been nothing but cooperative with government health measures and regulations. This presupposes there would have been a pandemic-related conflict between the government and the Church. As yet, I’ve seen none. Well this is the third time now I am saying that this is what I’m hearing. Do you think I’m lying or making stuff up or what? 2
Hamba Tuhan Posted June 28, 2020 Posted June 28, 2020 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: So you’ve heard people in your area explicitly say, “I don’t listen to government, I listen to God”? I've heard no Saints in my area say anything like that, but I've read almost identical comments from a frighteningly large number of American Saints with whom I share connections on social media, including several just yesterday whose posts were so bad that I had to copy and send them to my sister to see what she thought. Quote This presupposes there would have been a pandemic-related conflict between the government and the Church. As yet, I’ve seen none. I've likewise seen none. As I've mentioned before, the Church ceased public worship here before it was a government directive. We are currently allowed by government to hold worship services with up to 50 in attendance, but our Area President keeps saying not yet. Our government has lifted all limits on home visits, but the Church still limits me to one family per week. And so on. But the comments I'm reading from some American Saints on social media don't seem to reflect this reality. At all. The message I'm picking up is that COVID-19 is an outright hoax perpetuated by people who hate, in apparently equal measure, Donald Trump and Christianity. It's surreal. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted June 28, 2020 Author Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I've heard no Saints in my area say anything like that, but I've read almost identical comments from a frighteningly large number of American Saints with whom I share connections on social media, including several just yesterday whose posts were so bad that I had to copy and send them to my sister to see what she thought. I've likewise seen none. As I've mentioned before, the Church ceased public worship here before it was a government directive. We are currently allowed by government to hold worship services with up to 50 in attendance, but our Area President keeps saying not yet. Our government has lifted all limits on home visits, but the Church still limits me to one family per week. And so on. But the comments I'm reading from some American Saints on social media don't seem to reflect this reality. At all. The message I'm picking up is that COVID-19 is an outright hoax perpetuated by people who hate, in apparently equal measure, Donald Trump and Christianity. It's surreal. Seems odd that they would cast it as a hoax against Trump when the control measures in the United States have been largely driven by the Coronavirus Task Force appointed by Trump and placed under the direct supervision of Vice President Pence. That strikes me as an extremist and ill-informed view. Living in suburban Salt Lake County, I’ve not heard the “listen to God, not the government” sentiment from any of my friends, neighbors or relatives who are Church members. Nor have I encountered it on social media, although this board is the only expressly Latter-day Saint -oriented social medium where I spend any time to speak of. Most of the stuff on Reddit and elsewhere I find too exasperating to bear. Still, the sentiment strikes me as uncommon enough among our people that I stand by my perception that Mustard Seed’s comment is caricature. Edited June 28, 2020 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 28, 2020 Author Posted June 28, 2020 2 hours ago, MustardSeed said: Well this is the third time now I am saying that this is what I’m hearing. Do you think I’m lying or making stuff up or what? All I did was ask a question.
Calm Posted June 28, 2020 Posted June 28, 2020 4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: It's surreal. Yes, it is. 1
CV75 Posted June 28, 2020 Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 15 hours ago, pogi said: I am keeping it on that topic. Enough dancing around. Yes or no. Should governor's have that right or not? That is the question Elder Bednar raises. Be direct. I don't even know what you are saying or mean half the time. Just answer the question. Yes or no. Its not hard. 15 hours ago, Calm said: CV, I enjoy your posts in general quite a bit, but sometimes you do choose to use a lot of words, which I assume you do because you want to be precise. And often this works well imo. But it can have also at times have the opposite effect and be confusing. In this case, simpler is better because you are really confusing me and I am guessing from pogi's reaction, I am not the only one. I would suggest just dealing with whether the governors should have the right first and then once that is clearly established, in another post deal with specific or general limitations and cases. On one hand, I'm asked to answer more succinctly and on the other with bit more depth. I will try to do both! Should the freedom of religious expression require that faith groups continue activities as usual under all circumstances? No. Should waivers to executive orders be used as an appropriate alternative to essential status for allowing faith groups to continue activities as usual? No. Should religious groups be granted essential status in a declared emergency or in general? Yes. Should essential status carry with it requirements to alter or reduce normal activity according to government executive orders befitting the situation at hand? Yes. Should a governor's executive orders abide by these principles? Yes. Should a governor make these declarations in a vacuum? No. Should greater consideration be given to protecting religious freedom in times of crisis going forward? Yes. Edited June 28, 2020 by CV75 1
pogi Posted June 28, 2020 Posted June 28, 2020 14 minutes ago, CV75 said: On one hand, I'm asked to answer more succinctly and on the other with bit more depth. I will try to do both! Should the freedom of religious expression require that faith groups continue activities as usual under all circumstances? No. Should waivers to executive orders be used as an appropriate alternative to essential status for allowing faith groups to continue activities as usual? No. Should religious groups be granted essential status in a declared emergency or in general? Yes. Should essential status carry with it requirements to alter or reduce normal activity according to government executive orders befitting the situation at hand? Yes. Should a governor's executive orders abide by these principles? Yes. Should a governor make these declarations in a vacuum? No. Should greater consideration be given to protecting religious freedom in times of crisis going forward? Yes. In other words, you want to strip the governors of the right to decide in any given emergency situation. Right?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 28, 2020 Author Posted June 28, 2020 2 hours ago, pogi said: In other words, you want to strip the governors of the right to decide in any given emergency situation. Right? That’s not what I read.
pogi Posted June 28, 2020 Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: That’s not what I read. Then he is dodging my question repeatedly, because that is what I have been asking and I am not getting a straight answer. Should governors have the right (Which they hold) to decide? Edited June 28, 2020 by pogi
Scott Lloyd Posted June 28, 2020 Author Posted June 28, 2020 48 minutes ago, pogi said: Then he is dodging my question repeatedly, because that is what I have been asking and I am not getting a straight answer. Should governors have the right (Which they hold) to decide? Whatever right (and power) they hold should not be abused. That, in effect, is the message from the federal court to de Blasio and Cuomo.
pogi Posted June 28, 2020 Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Whatever right (and power) they hold should not be abused. That, in effect, is the message from the federal court to de Blasio and Cuomo. 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. Edited June 28, 2020 by pogi
Scott Lloyd Posted June 28, 2020 Author Posted June 28, 2020 3 minutes ago, pogi said: I agree with that. Elder Bednar is suggesting that they shouldn’t have the right or the power. That is what I disagree with. When politicians display a propensity to abuse power, the remedy is to temper that power — by legislative act or judicial fiat — against possible future instances.
pogi Posted June 28, 2020 Posted June 28, 2020 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: When politicians display a propensity to abuse power, the remedy is to temper that power — by legislative act or judicial fiat — against possible future instances. 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!
Scott Lloyd Posted June 28, 2020 Author Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 11 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! 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. Edited June 28, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
MustardSeed Posted June 28, 2020 Posted June 28, 2020 9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: All I did was ask a question. Me too, no harm intended.
Recommended Posts