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

[SteveO]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Because it was blatant discrimination.  

Was it?  Might’ve just been good wartime policy.  

 

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

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

Sure, if I was in New York, and stood in a group of 25,000 people holding a BLM sign, I’d be fine.

If I were a Orthodox Jew in New York, attending the funeral of Rabbi Chaim Mertz, I’d have the Mayor instructing the NYPD to arrest me on Twitter.

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

The law disagrees with you.

Where does the law say my rights are curtailed in a time of emergency?  You can’t just make stuff up there buddy.  CFR please.

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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. 

Martial Law hasn’t been declared since Pearl Harbor (why were the camps wrong again?) and for good reason since Democracy is completely suspended.  You want to take my rights?  Declare martial law, but EVERYONE goes down with me.  Which means EVERYONE has a vested interest in martial law being lifted as soon as possible.  
 

What we have now?

If I say the right things.

Support the right causes.

Or make enough money.

COVID mandates don’t apply to me.

And that’s what’s scary.  The government arbitrarily picking winners and losers during a pandemic.

Edited June 29, 2020 by SteveO

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, SteveO said:

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?

In some cases, individuals were deprived of property that was never restored to them. It was a sad chapter in American history. 

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Martial Law hasn’t been declared since Pearl Harbor (why were the camps wrong again?) and for good reason since Democracy is completely suspended.  You want to take my rights?  Declare martial law, but EVERYONE goes down with me.  Which means EVERYONE has a vested interest in martial law being lifted as soon as possible.  
 

What we have now?

If I say the rights things.

Support the right causes.

Or make enough money.

COVID mandates don’t apply to me.

And that’s what’s scary.  The government arbitrarily picking winners and losers during a pandemic.

👏👏👏

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Was it?  Might’ve just been good wartime policy. 

Yes it was according to the courts.

25 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Sure, if I was in New York, and stood in a group of 25,000 people holding a BLM sign, I’d be fine.

If I were a Orthodox Jew in New York, attending the funeral of Rabbi Chaim Mertz, I’d have the Mayor instructing the NYPD to arrest me on Twitter.

First, I’m talking about lockdowns in the general sense, I’m not going to argue about isolated cases I know nothing about.   I’m not going to pretend like discrimination never happened.
Designating religion as nonessential is not necessarily religious discrimination.

25 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Where does the law say my rights are curtailed in a time of emergency?  You can’t just make stuff up there buddy.  CFR please.

This isn’t our first rodeo buddy.  If you think these kind of shutdowns haven’t been challenged in the courts in past pandemics, you are mistaken.  They have been held up as constitutional over and over again.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-lockdown-orders-constitutional#related-content

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by pogi

[SteveO]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes it was according to the courts.

Thank goodness they said so after the fact.  Prisoners must’ve felt vindicated.

 

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

First, I’m talking about lockdowns in the general sense, I’m not going to argue about isolated cases I know nothing about.   I’m not going to pretend like discrimination never happened.
Designating religion as nonessential is not necessarily religious discrimination.

🙄

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

This isn’t our first rodeo buddy.  If you think these kind of shutdowns haven’t been challenged in the courts in past pandemics, you are mistaken.  They have been held up as constitutional over and over again.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-lockdown-orders-constitutional#related-content

 

So no piece of legislation was cited in that article.  I need to see a Federal or State law saying my rights are suspended when there’s an emergency.

What I see are a lot of “orders”.  Which are challenged in the courts because government is taking powers not explicitly granted to them?  And the Judicial system, part of the government, has upheld those actions?

You’re making Elder Bednar’s point.  

[pogi]

49 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Thank goodness they said so after the fact.  Prisoners must’ve felt vindicated.

Ummm, what do you want me to say?  The law was broken.  We can create law and hope that people obey it, and create consequences for violations, are you suggesting we should do more?  Infringe on agency perhaps?

49 minutes ago, SteveO said:

 

🙄

Okay???

49 minutes ago, SteveO said:

So no piece of legislation was cited in that article.  I need to see a Federal or State law saying my rights are suspended when there’s an emergency.

 

What I see are a lot of “orders”.  Which are challenged in the courts because government is taking powers not explicitly granted to them?  And the Judicial system, part of the government, has upheld those actions?

You’re making Elder Bednar’s point.  

That is a straw man.  I never said your rights are automatically suspended in an emergency. 

The judicial branch interprets the law, not you, not me.  I’m sorry to hear that you have such a distrust of the judicial branch and their ability to interpret the law.  It’s the best system we have of holding people accountable for violations of law.  It’s not a perfect system, but I trust their ability over yours. 

These orders have been upheld over and over and over and over again and found to be constitutional.  Who are you to second guess the wide judicial backing of these orders as supported by law?

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2020/youraba-april-2020/law-guides-legal-approach-to-pandemic/

Edited June 29, 2020 by pogi

[Anijen]

59 minutes ago, pogi said:

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2020/youraba-april-2020/law-guides-legal-approach-to-pandemic/

Just an FYI, the ABA is a far left organization. Of course, they side with whatever agenda and narrative that supports that political view.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Thank you for the clarification.

The reason I disagree that "never again can we allow government officials to treat the exercise of religion as simply nonessential" = "churches should always be defined as essential in emergency situations" is that (1) "the exercise of religion" as a right is not the same as "churches" in application; (2) treating this fundamental human right as nonessential is not the same as officially designating churches as nonessential; (3) to oppose (and inform, educate, etc.) officials' attitudes on a subject is not the same as limiting their power and role to regulate.

Edited June 29, 2020 by CV75

[pogi]

9 hours ago, Anijen said:

Just an FYI, the ABA is a far left organization. Of course, they side with whatever agenda and narrative that supports that political view.

Thanks for the heads up. I try to reference non-extreme sources, but as far as I can tell, the laws and legal cases they site, are real and applicable in emergency.  Even a broken clock is not always wrong.

Here are some other sources for good measure:

https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=364692&p=2463710

https://www.google.com/amp/s/constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/constitutional-powers-and-issues-during-a-quarantine-situation

Edited June 29, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

(1) "the exercise of religion" as a right is not the same as "churches" in application; 

Church is an "application" of the exercise of religion.  Elder Bednar was either speaking about the ban of religious gatherings in religious institutions (aka churches) or he is setting up a straw-man.  No government banned or designated all "exercise of religion", such as prayer and officiating of ordinances in the home etc., as non-essential.  

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

(2) treating this fundamental human right as nonessential is not the same as officially designating churches as nonessential; 

Isn't gathering and worshiping in church an exercise of religion?  If you are suggesting it is not the same however, are you suggesting that Bednar wasn't actually protesting the closing down of churches then?  Are you saying that you agree that local governments should have the right to designate churches as non-essential, so long as they don't call all other exercise of religion as non essential?  I 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

(3) to oppose (and inform, educate, etc.) officials' attitudes on a subject is not the same as limiting their power and role to regulate.

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

 If you are suggesting that he wasn't trying to limit their power and role to regulate, then his statement is even more reckless and dangerous.  What did he mean by "never again can we allow", if it wasn't a call to try and limit their power and role that is currently designated to them by law?  Was he activating the people to blatantly resist the executive orders and gather anyway???  I sincerely hope that you are wrong that he wasn't simply encouraging us to try and change the law and thereby restrict their power, because the alternative is dangerous and reckless defiance of the law. 

"Never again can we allow..."  Doesn't sound like "informing and educating" officials to me.  There are only 2 ways I can think of to not allow this to happen again.  Change the law or disobey the law. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by pogi

[Tacenda]

I wish that at the beginning we wore our homemade masks, not hospital grade, and we didn't shut down at all. And continued wearing them until the virus was hopefully obliterated. But this virus threw us for a loop and will go down in history doing it. Each day we learn something new about ourselves and the virus. I hope from this day forward we'll do what it takes, for our freedoms and health ahead.

[Anijen]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Thanks for the heads up. I try to reference non-extreme sources, but as far as I can tell, the laws and legal cases they site, are real and applicable in emergency.  Even a broken clock is not always wrong.

Here are some other sources for good measure:

https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=364692&p=2463710

https://www.google.com/amp/s/constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/constitutional-powers-and-issues-during-a-quarantine-situation

The cases are real, but they will usually only cite only the cases that favor their view. Applicable in emergency, I take to mean during an emergency, is that correct? There are so many emergencies that will broaden the justification for using such emergency tactics (e.g., quarantines, lockdowns, evacuation, curfews, gun confiscation, family separation, racial segregation, etc..).

Aw, the "even a broken clock is right twice a day cliche." It is not right at all it is broke. When big money stores are allowed to stay open, a long with bars, then the justification of banning religious service because of health and safety concerns have gone too far. Furthermore, they'll allow (turn a blind eye) for certain religions to function in all aspects but as far as Christian and Jewish services one risks fines and or being arrested or both. But, don't worry about it it is for our health and safety.

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, Anijen said:

The cases are real, but they will usually only cite only the cases that favor their view. 

Well, I provided 2 more sources who do not fit into the extreme-left category.  That should suffice.  Are you going to deny the laws exist?  Are you suggesting that Governor Herbert (a right wing Latter-day Saint) broke the law?

32 minutes ago, Anijen said:

The cases are real, but they will usually only cite only the cases that favor their view. Applicable in emergency, I take to mean during an emergency, is that correct? There are so many emergencies that will broaden the justification for using such emergency tactics (e.g., quarantines, lockdowns, evacuation, curfews, gun confiscation, family separation, racial segregation, etc..).

Aw, the "even a broken clock is right twice a day cliche." It is not right at all it is broke. 

A clock doesn't need to work to be right twice day.  Either way, I posted other references so that should suffice.

32 minutes ago, Anijen said:

When big money stores are allowed to stay open, a long with bars, then the justification of banning religious service because of health and safety concerns have gone too far. 

 I am not arguing specific cases.  I am talking about the general legal right that governor's have to designate churches as nonessential in emergency. 

32 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Furthermore, they'll allow (turn a blind eye) for certain religions to function in all aspects but as far as Christian and Jewish services one risks fines and or being arrested or both. But, don't worry about it it is for our health and safety.

"They"?  You make it sound as if all governor's from both sides of the isle are doing this.  If there are any, they need to be held accountable. You hold individuals accountable.  That's how our system works.  You don't punish everyone, or strip the rights/powers of all governor's because a few broke the law.  To strip governor's of their constitutional rights and moral duty to protect the public in emergency through executive quarantine orders/shut-downs would be devastatingly catastrophic.  

Edited June 29, 2020 by pogi

[alter idem]

On 6/25/2020 at 12:10 PM, pogi said:

I 100% disagree that church gatherings should be considered "essential" in an emergency pandemic, which allows them immunity from closure in emergency.

When you say "we are not going to be singing" are you talking about your ward specifically?  Several people here have already reported that their wards are singing.  Can you show me any guidelines discouraging singing from the church?  I can show you some from the CDC. 

If these gathering sizes are accurate, things have changed when I wasn't looking.  I remember the governor limiting church gathering to less than 100 (which is exactly when the church limited group sizes to 99).  If he has loosened that restriction as numbers have increased - that makes no sense to me.   Social gatherings are still limited to 50.  If there truly is no restriction on church gathering sizes now, and 3,000 or more are allowed for events, then I am extremely disappointed.  Hospitals are saying that they will be over-run in 2-3 weeks time if things continue as they are, and we are allowing church gatherings of any size and other indoor events up 3,000 people??? Is anyone watching the numbers here?  

I guess I was confused by your original comment that churches should be allowed to make their own guidelines.  It sounded to me like you wanted them to have total immunity on how they did things:

 

 

So, this is a matter of opinion.  You do not believe Church gatherings are 'essential'.  But, others disagree with you, as from the article, it's obvious Elder Bednar disagrees with you.  It seems like this is a matter of personal beliefs, as some felt that allowing people to protest was 'essential', but others felt it was not.  Essential businesses and services were allowed to not shut down, but instead, take precautions, but since church gatherings were determined to be non essential, they weren't allowed to be held at all.  That's the point of Elder Bednar's remarks, he believes that church gatherings should be considered essential, and he has the right to his opinion and to share it, when asked to speak, imo.

[alter idem]

On 6/26/2020 at 1:24 PM, 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?)

As I recall, the source was somebody on Reddit that thought Elder Bednar's anecdotes were suspicious.  Am I right?  It was on Reddit, I think.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Church is an "application" of the exercise of religion.  Elder Bednar was either speaking about the ban of religious gatherings in religious institutions (aka churches) or he is setting up a straw-man.  No government banned or designated all "exercise of religion", such as prayer and officiating of ordinances in the home etc., as non-essential.  

Isn't gathering and worshiping in church an exercise of religion?  If you are suggesting it is not the same however, are you suggesting that Bednar wasn't actually protesting the closing down of churches then?  Are you saying that you agree that local governments should have the right to designate churches as non-essential, so long as they don't call all other exercise of religion as non essential?  I 

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

 If you are suggesting that he wasn't trying to limit their power and role to regulate, then his statement is even more reckless and dangerous.  What did he mean by "never again can we allow", if it wasn't a call to try and limit their power and role that is currently designated to them by law?  Was he activating the people to blatantly resist the executive orders and gather anyway???  I sincerely hope that you are wrong that he wasn't simply encouraging us to try and change the law and thereby restrict their power, because the alternative is dangerous and reckless defiance of the law. 

"Never again can we allow..."  Doesn't sound like "informing and educating" officials to me.  There are only 2 ways I can think of to not allow this to happen again.  Change the law or disobey the law. 

A casual or non-supportive attitude among government officials toward religious freedom can/could lead to hasty and improper decisions impacting its exercise (in this instance, the right to large, small or one-on -one gathering). Elder Bednar was protesting the attitude, which in haste and ease led to some failings to protect this freedom in the instances he referenced.

To “treat the exercise of religion as simply nonessential” means to casually or disparagingly regard the freedom, not to designate a faith group (which exists by way of religious freedom) as nonessential. Official designation does not necessarily follow the attitude, and the attitude can support or undermine official designation. Changing or disobeying the law doesn’t address this, but lobbying to change attitudes and transparency in acting in relation to official designations might.

Government officials can hold their posts irrespective of their attitude and the quality of their decisions until they are voted or kicked out. They have the attendant right and power to make decisions, good and bad. Hopefully they will not repeat them, and pay the price when they are particularly egregious.

Gathering and worshiping in church is an exercise of religious freedom. Designating churches as nonessential (or essential) and defining whether or how they gather in various ways, regardless of the attitude of government officials, can represent poor decisions.

It seems that most often, mandated mass gathering restrictions in executive orders were waived for churches designated as nonessential as a nod to religious freedom, and churches were instead only strongly encouraged to follow them as recommendations. In some cases, churches designated as nonessential were prohibited from gathering, with attendant lawsuits to defend their religious freedom. In either case, their official designation as essential or nonessential was not the issue, just the allowance to meet.

I think that one approach to resolve these inconsistencies is for churches to be designated as essential services, either proactively (perhaps a change in law, depending) or case-by-case (executive order) as a means to both ensure safety and religious freedom. But Elder Bednar doesn't bring this up.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

So, this is a matter of opinion.  You do not believe Church gatherings are 'essential'.  But, others disagree with you, as from the article, it's obvious Elder Bednar disagrees with you.  It seems like this is a matter of personal beliefs, as some felt that allowing people to protest was 'essential', but others felt it was not.  Essential businesses and services were allowed to not shut down, but instead, take precautions, but since church gatherings were determined to be non essential, they weren't allowed to be held at all.  That's the point of Elder Bednar's remarks, he believes that church gatherings should be considered essential, and he has the right to his opinion and to share it, when asked to speak, imo.

He is entitled to his opinion.  His opinion endangers everyone and is contrary to law in allowing governor's power to decide, however.

Edited June 29, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

A casual or non-supportive attitude among government officials toward religious freedom can/could lead to hasty and improper decisions impacting its exercise (in this instance, the right to large, small or one-on -one gathering). Elder Bednar was protesting the attitude, which in haste and ease led to some failings to protect this freedom in the instances he referenced.

To “treat the exercise of religion as simply nonessential” means to casually or disparagingly regard the freedom, not to designate a faith group (which exists by way of religious freedom) as nonessential. Official designation does not necessarily follow the attitude, and the attitude can support or undermine official designation. 

I somehow don't think he was talking about "attitudes".  To insist that "we can't allow government officials..." to have certain "attitudes" would be an egregious statement for an apostle to make.  They can have whatever "attitude" they want so long as they obey the law.  To "not allow" someone to have a certain attitude is a tad overbearing and controlling, wouldn't you say?  It seems obvious to everyone here, but you, that he was talking about official designations and not attitudes in that quote. 

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In either case, their official designation as essential or nonessential was not the issue, just the allowance to meet.

That allowance to meet as a congregation is precisely what governors do, and should, have power to prohibit in emergency.

Edited June 29, 2020 by pogi

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

I somehow don't think he was talking about "attitudes".  To insist that "we can't allow government officials..." to have certain "attitudes" would be an egregious statement for an apostle to make.  They can have whatever "attitude" they want so long as they obey the law.  To "not allow" someone to have a certain attitude is a tad overbearing and controlling, wouldn't you say?  It seems obvious to everyone here, but you, that he was talking about official designations and not attitudes in that quote. 

That allowance to meet as a congregation is precisely what governors do, and should, have power to prohibit in emergency.

We often vote politicians in and out, and educate them to influence and keep them in power, based on their attitudes (expressed positions, opinions, feelings, etc.).

Evidently some governors (and courts for that matter) use their power to allow congregations to meet despite the nonessential designation of their groups. The arguments leading to that are over the right to meet, not the faith groups'  push for essential designation, though that could be one route as I suggested.

Edited June 29, 2020 by CV75

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Evidently some governors (and courts for that matter) use their power to allow congregations to meet despite the nonessential designation of their groups. The arguments leading to that are over the right to meet, not the faith groups'  push for essential designation, though that could be one route as I suggested.

That is the governor's right, depending on the local situation.  If they feel that they need to restrict  faith groups from gathering at all to protect the community in emergency, they should have that power.  

[Tacenda]

If churches are exempt from paying taxes should they also be exempt from following governor's orders? That's a bit hierarchical easy street to me, if so.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Tacenda

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That is the governor's right, depending on the local situation.  If they feel that they need to restrict  faith groups from gathering at all to protect the community in emergency, they should have that power.  

Let your voice be heard! I think Elder Bednar recognizes that governors have that power (within the constraints of their state constitution), and that we cannot allow them by our power (within the constraints of our state constitution) to treat the exercise of religion as simply nonessential or trivialize the fundamental right to worship God.

Edited June 29, 2020 by CV75

[CA Steve]

Elder Bednar's remarks are ill timed and ill advised. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, alter idem said:

It seems like this is a matter of personal beliefs, as some felt that allowing people to protest was 'essential', but others felt it was not. 

It should be noted imo that Pogi’s personal beliefs have a huge amount of experience the rest of us are lacking in regards to knowing about Covid and how it is spreading.
 

If you were at a neighbourhood party and one neighbour was a specialist in heart disease who was telling you your symptoms were a sign of a heart attack and you should immediately go to the hospital, but the rest of the party was saying you just had some bad heartburn, take some antacid and should stick around for the rest of the fun, who would you listen to?