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

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't understand what agency has to do with this argument.  We are comparing our constitutional rights here.  But I'll play along - you can't have agency without life.  Both eternally and in mortality, life came first, so I can say it is more primal.  Life makes agency possible.  All other rights and privileges stem from our right to life. 

Then you disagree with Elder Bednar too, but for different reasons.  He made it very clear that there was an unequivocally "more important" and "paramount" blade.  I actually agree with him there, I just disagree with the blade he chose. 

I'm not sure exactly what Elder Bednar is saying, which is why my first post had some possibilities of what he meant or why he said what he did.  I think it's time to agree to disagree though.  We've gotten to the point where we just keep repeating ourselves and saying 'no, I'm right.' 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Reading through Elder Bednar’s remarks, I don’t get the impression he is advocating “sacrificing [one’s] life or “put[ting] others at risk on the alter of freedom.” 

If he is insisting that church workers be considered essential workers, then yes, he is advocating putting other peoples lives at risk on the alter of religious liberty - it being paramount to all other rights, including life (according to him).

[CA Steve]

As a show of good faith in the importance of church meetings and the ability of local leadership to safely conduct such meetings perhaps the general authorities could start attending randomly chosen church meetings.

[longview]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

16 hours ago, longview said:

When a person is subjected to the death penalty for murder, he is NOT at that time being forced to change his religion (regardless if he is a believer or not).  Those two things do NOT go hand in hand.

Reread what I wrote.  Straw-man.

Read it again.  You are confused about what rights are in play when the criminal is executed.  "All those other rights" are NOT material to the death penalty and have NO application.  Rights do NOT cease to exist for the criminal at the time of death.  He continues on to the Spirit World where he still has some rights that exist in mortality PLUS other rights that pertain to the next stage.

16 hours ago, pogi said:

This is a HUGE derail.  The doctor only mentioned religion in one tiny sentence for like one second of a 16 minute or so video mostly promoting Hydroxychloroquine.  Face-palm!!!  Please don't waste my time with this junk and stick to topic. 

Doctor Jeff Barke is eminently eloquent in pointing out the strange inconsistencies in the rules put out by government entities.  The video is VERY appropriate for considerations of points made by BOTH Elder Bednar and Dr. Barke.

16 hours ago, pogi said:

P.S.  Supporting limits to religious liberty in emergency is not the same as support for liquor stores to be open.

Hence the mind-blowing contradiction!  There was no rhyme or reason to favoring certain kinds of businesses or shutting down so-called "non-essentials".  Why "Big Box Stores" were allowed to stay open when small businesses could just as easily have maintained spacing of customers coming thru the door.  You really need to check your Deep State bias and give this video a careful review:

 

[Anijen]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

If he is insisting that church workers be considered essential workers, then yes, he is advocating putting other peoples lives at risk on the alter of religious liberty - it being paramount to all other rights, including life (according to him).

I agree with Elder Bednar 100%. We are all at risk regardless if we are labeled an essential worker or not. We came down to earth and Heavenly Father knew we would be at risk. If it was His plan, and I believe it was, then He knowingly placed our lives at risk the moment we were born.

Saying Elder Bednar is advocating  putting people lives at risk is, IMO, not what he is implying. "Advocating puting peoples lives at risk" is the same as saying; "I publicly recommend and support putting people's lives at risk."  I do not believe Elder Bednar is advocating that.

 

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, longview said:

He continues on to the Spirit World where he still has some rights that exist in mortality PLUS other rights that pertain to the next stage.

Ummm, we are talking about constitutionally protected rights here, correct?  I am afraid the constitution doesn't apply to the spirit world.  Sorry.  Whatever protections exist in the next life are something else - they are not protected by the constitution of the United States.  I hope that is obvious to you, but your response makes me wonder.

11 minutes ago, longview said:

Doctor Jeff Barke is eminently eloquent in pointing out the strange inconsistencies in the rules put out by government entities.  The video is VERY appropriate for considerations of points made by BOTH Elder Bednar and Dr. Barke.

Hence the mind-blowing contradiction!  There was no rhyme or reason to favoring certain kinds of businesses or shutting down so-called "non-essentials".  Why "Big Box Stores" were allowed to stay open when small businesses could just as easily have maintained spacing of customers coming thru the door.  You really need to check your Deep State bias and give this video a careful review:

This thread is about religious liberties in pandemic, not about the inconsistencies of the government in shutting down small business vs big-box stores.  This is a derail and another strawman.  No, I certainly do not need to give this idiot one more second of consideration.  I am not saying that everything he is saying is wrong, but it is a derail, political, and he spits out tons of really stupid, dangerous, and reckless information about other things like hydroxychloroquine. Enough is enough, move on from this guy and get back on topic. 

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

If he is insisting that church workers be considered essential workers, then yes, he is advocating putting other peoples lives at risk on the alter of religious liberty - it being paramount to all other rights, including life (according to him).

This is intemperate rhetoric and convoluted reasoning. 

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I agree with Elder Bednar 100%. We are all at risk regardless if we are labeled an essential worker or not. We came down to earth and Heavenly Father knew we would be at risk. If it was His plan, and I believe it was, then He knowingly placed our lives at risk the moment we were born.

Saying Elder Bednar is advocating  putting people lives at risk is, IMO, not what he is implying. "Advocating puting peoples lives at risk" is the same as saying; "I publicly recommend and support putting people's lives at risk."  I do not believe Elder Bednar is advocating that.

Of course there is risk in everything, but that is no reason to throw precaution to the wind.   We try our best to mitigate that risk and there is give and take in that.  We are not an anarchy state, we sacrifice some liberties to mitigate risk.  I don't think religion is an exception, nor should they be given special privilege's as a "paramount" right.   

I disagree.  Supporting policies which place peoples lives at unreasonable risk, is advocating for the same.  Doing so in the name of religious liberty doesn't mask the unreasonable risk he is advocating for.  If you place the right to religious liberty above the right to life, it becomes a dangerous, unhealthy, and imbalanced paradigm in my opinion.   I know that Elder Bednar means well, but I don't think he has thought through the implications of what "essential workers" means in application here.

Edited June 18, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is intemperate rhetoric and convoluted reasoning. 

Thanks for your opinion.  I find it quite reasoned, temperate, and sound.  I know that Elder Bednar means well, but I don't think he has thought through the implications of what "essential workers" means in application here.

Edited June 18, 2020 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, pogi said:

If he is insisting that church workers be considered essential workers, then yes, he is advocating putting other peoples lives at risk on the alter of religious liberty - it being paramount to all other rights, including life (according to him).

 

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is intemperate rhetoric and convoluted reasoning. 

 

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Thanks for your opinion.  I find it quite reasoned, temperate, and sound.  I know that Elder Bednar means well, but I don't think he has thought through the implications of what "essential workers" means in application here.

You keep revisiting the “paramount” wording, almost as though you are weaponizing it against Elder Bednar. I wonder if you have bothered to consult the transcript and read it in context. Here is the context:

This time of restriction and confinement has confirmed for me that no freedom is more important than religious freedom. The freedom of religion properly has been called our first freedom. It is first not only because of its placement as the first right in the First Amendment, but also because of the paramount importance of respecting the moral agency of each person. Living even for a brief few weeks under the restrictions imposed on religious activity by COVID-19 is a stark reminder that nothing is more precious to people of faith than the freedom to “worship Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience”[xiv] and to openly and freely live according to our convictions.

Religious liberty is one of the “just and holy principles”[xv] underlying the Constitution of the United States. That liberty draws from and in turn reinforces the other rights protected by the First Amendment––the right to speak freely, to make use of a free press, to peaceably gather with others, and to petition the government to redress grievances.

Freedom of religion stands as a bulwark against unlimited government power. It safeguards the right to think for oneself, to believe what one feels to be true, and to exercise moral agency accordingly. It secures the space necessary to live with faith, integrity, and devotion. It nurtures strong families. It protects communities of faith and the rich and sacred relationships they make possible.

Nothing government does is more important than fostering the conditions wherein religion can flourish.
 

I can’t reasonably disagree with any of the above. If you can, fine. I respect your right to your opinion and will agree to disagree without being disagreeable. 

[longview]

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

1 hour ago, longview said:

He continues on to the Spirit World where he still has some rights that exist in mortality PLUS other rights that pertain to the next stage.

Ummm, we are talking about constitutionally protected rights here, correct?  I am afraid the constitution doesn't apply to the spirit world.  Sorry.  Whatever protections exist in the next life are something else - they are not protected by the constitution of the United States.  I hope that is obvious to you, but your response makes me wonder.

We could be.  John Locke spoke of natural rights (considered to come from God).  The US Constitution has been called a Heavenly Banner (in spite of its imperfections).  But it does contain many important principles of Liberty.  They are applicable in mortality as well as in the next stages.  See D&C 88:38.

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

This thread is about religious liberties in pandemic, not about the inconsistencies of the government in shutting down small business vs big-box stores.  This is a derail and another strawman.

The right of a small group of people to conduct church services is just as applicable for masses of protestors to assemble in public to demonstrate their deep concerns (with the FULL approbation of government officials in permitting this display of "politically correct" expressions).

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, I certainly do not need to give this idiot one more second of consideration.

Your hospice qualifications outweighs Dr. Barke's decades of medical practises and experience?

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

- - - and he spits out tons of really stupid, dangerous, and reckless information about other things like hydroxychloroquine. - - -

It does seem strange that a major propaganda war is being waged between various elements in society.  Australia is NOT prohibiting the use of HZ (as well as a few other countries).  It is unseemly for the FBI to put pressure on doctors for making clinical decisions for the use of other alternatives (including IV vitamin C).

Edited June 18, 2020 by longview

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

You keep revisiting the “paramount” wording, almost as though you are weaponizing it against Elder Bednar. I wonder if you have bothered to consult the transcript and read it in context. Here is the context:

This time of restriction and confinement has confirmed for me that no freedom is more important than religious freedom. The freedom of religion properly has been called our first freedom. It is first not only because of its placement as the first right in the First Amendment, but also because of the paramount importance of respecting the moral agency of each person. Living even for a brief few weeks under the restrictions imposed on religious activity by COVID-19 is a stark reminder that nothing is more precious to people of faith than the freedom to “worship Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience”[xiv] and to openly and freely live according to our convictions.

Religious liberty is one of the “just and holy principles”[xv] underlying the Constitution of the United States. That liberty draws from and in turn reinforces the other rights protected by the First Amendment––the right to speak freely, to make use of a free press, to peaceably gather with others, and to petition the government to redress grievances.

Freedom of religion stands as a bulwark against unlimited government power. It safeguards the right to think for oneself, to believe what one feels to be true, and to exercise moral agency accordingly. It secures the space necessary to live with faith, integrity, and devotion. It nurtures strong families. It protects communities of faith and the rich and sacred relationships they make possible.

Nothing government does is more important than fostering the conditions wherein religion can flourish.
 

I can’t reasonably disagree with any of the above. If you can, fine. I respect your right to your opinion and will agree to disagree without being disagreeable. 

That is not the only place he used the word "paramount".  See here:

Quote

Religious freedom is paramount among our fundamental rights.

Unless I am mistaken, life is one of our fundamental rights.  In fact, it is the very first one listed, even before liberty, and yes, even before the freedom of religion.  I'm sorry, I can't agree with him here.

I also take exception to the following quote:

Quote

Living even for a brief few weeks under the restrictions imposed on religious activity by COVID-19 is a stark reminder that nothing is more precious to people of faith than the freedom to “worship Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience”[xiv] and to openly and freely live according to our convictions.

"Nothing is more precious"? Maybe he should speak for himself and not for all people of faith.  Freedom to worship according to the dictates of our conscious is indeed precious, but when the dictates of your conscience place unreasonable risk upon the life of others, then there should be some limits to those dictates as other things are deemed more precious than your dictates. 

"...and to freely live according to our convictions".  The key word there being "live".  Life.  It is paramount. 

[Anijen]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

Of course there is risk in everything, but that is no reason to throw precaution to the wind.

Elder Bednar statements was not "throwing precaution to the wind."  

Quote

We try our best to mitigate that risk and there is give and take in that. 

Mitigating risk is good. But mitigating risk at different levels for those same risks has been politicized. The "give and take" is decided by politicians with agenda driven reasons.

Quote

We are not an anarchy state,

Yet. However trying telling that to the residents of CHAZ

Quote

we sacrifice some liberties to mitigate risk. 

All the time we do this and I am not saying that is a bad thing.

Quote

I don't think religion is an exception, nor should they be given special privilege's as a "paramount" right.   

Religion is not an exception, but neither is Walmart, Costco, bars, Mosques allowed to be used while our chapels and cathedrals were not, showing papers when driving into the state...

FYI, Religion has always been a paramount right so has the right to assemble. In legalese the word paramount is substituted with fundamental. But different religions should not be given "special privileges" (your words) while other religions do not.

Quote

Supporting policies which place peoples lives at unreasonable risk, is advocating for the same.  Doing so in the name of religious liberty doesn't mask the unreasonable risk he is advocating for.  If you place the right to religious liberty above the right to life, it becomes a dangerous, unhealthy, and imbalanced paradigm in my opinion.

Advocating means the public recommendation and support. I don't think you have thought through the implications of the word advocate. If you have you are saying Elder Bedbar is publicly recommending and supporting placing peoples lives at stake.

Quote

  I know that Elder Bednar means well, but I don't think he has thought through the implications of what "essential workers" means in application here.

I believe he means well too, and he has thought through every word he has said. Essential worker (or work place) should not be designated above the fundamental right of assembly or the fundamental right to worship. And please your argument for health reasoning that it is good to ban church service because lives are at risk but bad to ban bars and stores, etc. because lives are at less risk is selectively choosing  that goes against the constitution. 

[longview]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Religious liberty is one of the “just and holy principles”[xv] underlying the Constitution of the United States. That liberty draws from and in turn reinforces the other rights protected by the First Amendment––the right to speak freely, to make use of a free press, to peaceably gather with others, and to petition the government to redress grievances.

Freedom of religion stands as a bulwark against unlimited government power. It safeguards the right to think for oneself, to believe what one feels to be true, and to exercise moral agency accordingly. It secures the space necessary to live with faith, integrity, and devotion. It nurtures strong families. It protects communities of faith and the rich and sacred relationships they make possible.

Nothing government does is more important than fostering the conditions wherein religion can flourish.

So true.  The original ten Amendments were NOT added to grant the rights of the people.  They were spelled out as a PROHIBITION against government from infringing on the basic rights.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

And I do not buy the argument that Covid is less risk to us at a Walmart than in church especially if the church can use proper social distancing.

People don’t congregate for an hour or more in Walmart. Nor do they need to talk to each other.  If length of time is the third key value with masks and distance (see Pogi’s stuff for most up to date info and remember he is one of those seeing where people are getting infected, so ideal placement to rate recommendations imo), then that puts Walmart and church gatherings in a different category. 

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, longview said:

We could be.  John Locke spoke of natural rights (considered to come from God).  The US Constitution has been called a Heavenly Banner (in spite of its imperfections).  But it does contain many important principles of Liberty.  They are applicable in mortality as well as in the next stages.  See D&C 88:38.

They may be natural rights. But you missed my point that they will not be protected by the US constitution in the next life.  That is what we are talking about here.  Constitutionally protected rights.  

10 minutes ago, longview said:

The right of a small of people to conduct church services is just as applicable for masses of protestors to assemble in public to demonstrate their deep concerns (with the FULL approbation of government officials in permitting this display of "politically correct" expressions).

Those protesters are in violation of law.  I didn't see anyone get arrested for gathering, but I have not seen any church goers get arrested for violating the law in mass gatherings either. 

12 minutes ago, longview said:

Your hospice qualifications outweighs Dr. Barke's decades of medical practises and experience?

Legally he is qualified to practice in different ways then me.  That doesn't make him right in this instance.  I have a history of hospice work.  It is not what I do now.  I specialize and am certified in infectious disease and travel medicine.  That certification is the same one that is required by doctors to certify in my field. I have to pass the exact same test that doctors do.  In many ways, I am more qualified to talk about infectious disease, especially Covid than he is as a general practitioner and family doctor.  The FDA has pretty much demolished his reckless promotion of Hydroxychloroquine.   I don't care how long he was worked as a doctor, his judgment is wrong and reckless in this matter specifically.  Lets move on from this derail shall we (for the THIRD time).   

 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Muslims can meet in daily prayers, hold funeral arrangements, etc., which are banned but not being enforced, but Jewish people are being threatened with arrest if they hold any service for any amount of people. Limitations are being placed is an issue, but there are some states were those limitations are given a wink-wink while others are being cracked down on

Two wrongs don’t make a right. I think it better that churches are limited the right way...especially since we are seeing outbreaks more from church gatherings as opposed to shopping or even bars (which I would have expected to be high due to less self control)...then opening them up just because the restaurant down the street is open. 
 

And yeah, it feels like crap to be the only ones doing it right, but better that than adding to the problem which means more sick, more hospitalized, and more dead. 

[longview]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

27 minutes ago, longview said:

The right of a small of people to conduct church services is just as applicable for masses of protestors to assemble in public to demonstrate their deep concerns (with the FULL approbation of government officials in permitting this display of "politically correct" expressions).

Those protesters are in violation of law.  I didn't see anyone get arrested for gathering, but I have not seen any church goers get arrested for violating the law in mass gatherings either. 

You may have missed this important news item:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/religious-liberty-department-of-justice-backs-churchgoers-fined-for-attending-drive-in-easter-service/

"The Justice Department on Tuesday filed a statement of interest supporting the Temple Baptist Church of Greenville, Miss. whose congregants were fined for attending a drive-in Easter service in which worshippers listened to the sermon via car radio.

“The City of Greenville fined congregants $500 per person for attending these parking lot services — while permitting citizens to attend nearby drive-in restaurants, even with their windows open,” the DOJ’s filing said. “The City appears to have thereby singled churches out as the only essential service (as designated by the state of Mississippi) that may not operate despite following all CDC and state recommendations regarding social distancing.”

[Anijen]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

People don’t congregate for an hour or more in Walmart. Nor do they need to talk to each other.  If length of time is the third key value with masks and distance (see Pogi’s stuff for most up to date info and remember he is one of those seeing where people are getting infected, so ideal placement to rate recommendations imo), then that puts Walmart and church gatherings in a different category. 

But there is still risk at Walmart, Costco. There is still risk.

Risk of human life, how much risk is acceptable? It is terrible to meet at church but the risk at Walmart because it is lower is acceptable?

The high risk person going to Walmart is still at risk. Our ward has put out the notice to all those who are in a high risk category or even if they are not but believe the risk is too great to please stay home. Isn't that a better solution to give that agency to the person if they feel at risk to stay home rather than ban all from church?

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Two wrongs don’t make a right. I think it better that churches are limited the right way...especially since we are seeing outbreaks more from church gatherings as opposed to shopping or even bars (which I would have expected to be high due to less self control)...then opening them up just because the restaurant down the street is open. 
 

And yeah, it feels like crap to be the only ones doing it right, but better that than adding to the problem which means more sick, more hospitalized, and more dead. 

Of course two wrongs do not make it right. I never implied such. I was pointing out the double standard that has become once it was politicized.

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Elder Bednar statements was not "throwing precaution to the wind."  

Mitigating risk is good. But mitigating risk at different levels for those same risks has been politicized. The "give and take" is decided by politicians with agenda driven reasons.

Yet. However trying telling that to the residents of CHAZ

All the time we do this and I am not saying that is a bad thing.

Religion is not an exception, but neither is Walmart, Costco, bars, Mosques allowed to be used while our chapels and cathedrals were not, showing papers when driving into the state...

FYI, Religion has always been a paramount right so has the right to assemble. In legalese the word paramount is substituted with fundamental. But different religions should not be given "special privileges" (your words) while other religions do not.

Advocating means the public recommendation and support. I don't think you have thought through the implications of the word advocate. If you have you are saying Elder Bedbar is publicly recommending and supporting placing peoples lives at stake.

I believe he means well too, and he has thought through every word he has said. Essential worker (or work place) should not be designated above the fundamental right of assembly or the fundamental right to worship. And please your argument for health reasoning that it is good to ban church service because lives are at risk but bad to ban bars and stores, etc. because lives are at less risk is selectively choosing  that goes against the constitution. 

There is a lot to address here.  I would go through point for point, but that will get messy.   One point I will address, I never said that it is good to ban church service but bad to ban bars, etc.  That is a strawman.  I am not pretending that there have been no examples of violations against some people's religious liberties and that everything has been equal and fair in application.   Yes, those violations should be addressed and a more balanced and fair approach should be considered.  My problem is that Elder Bednar's approach doesn't sound balanced or reasonable.  It gives unreasonable preference to protect religious liberty above all other liberties, even if that means unreasonable risk to the public. 

One more point I want to address.  It seems you are arguing that by using the word "paramount" Elder Bednar was only suggesting that religious liberty is "fundamental" among our rights, and that perhaps he didn't use the word to mean supreme or most important.  However he clearly did say, "no freedom is more important".  He also said, "Religious freedom is paramount among our fundamental rights."  So, it clearly demonstrated by his use of the word "paramount" and "fundamental" in the same sentence, that he was using the word to mean "supreme" or of "highest importance" among our fundamental rights.  I can't disagree more. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, longview said:

You may have missed this important news item:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/religious-liberty-department-of-justice-backs-churchgoers-fined-for-attending-drive-in-easter-service/

"The Justice Department on Tuesday filed a statement of interest supporting the Temple Baptist Church of Greenville, Miss. whose congregants were fined for attending a drive-in Easter service in which worshippers listened to the sermon via car radio.

“The City of Greenville fined congregants $500 per person for attending these parking lot services — while permitting citizens to attend nearby drive-in restaurants, even with their windows open,” the DOJ’s filing said. “The City appears to have thereby singled churches out as the only essential service (as designated by the state of Mississippi) that may not operate despite following all CDC and state recommendations regarding social distancing.”

I did miss that important news item.  That seems outrageous if they were in their cars.   

Like I said in my last post,  I am not pretending that there have been no examples of violations against some people's religious liberties and that everything has been equal and fair in application.  That doesn't mean I agree with Elder Bednar in every point.  None of this changes the points I disagree with and is a distraction. 

Have you heard about the Oregon church outbreak?  Everyone of those congregants should be fined (they haven't been).  They were in violation of the law and responsible for serious harm to the community - in the name of religious liberty of course. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is not the only place he used the word "paramount".  See here:

Unless I am mistaken, life is one of our fundamental rights.  In fact, it is the very first one listed, even before liberty, and yes, even before the freedom of religion.  I'm sorry, I can't agree with him here.

I also take exception to the following quote:

"Nothing is more precious"? Maybe he should speak for himself and not for all people of faith.  Freedom to worship according to the dictates of our conscious is indeed precious, but when the dictates of your conscience place unreasonable risk upon the life of others, then there should be some limits to those dictates as other things are deemed more precious than your dictates. 

"...and to freely live according to our convictions".  The key word there being "live".  Life.  It is paramount. 

You keep acting as though Elder Bednar had claimed there should be no limit to religious freedom. He did not make such a claim. 
 

 

[Anijen]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

There is a lot to address here.  I would go through point for point, but that will get messy.   One point I will address, I never said that it is good to ban church service but bad to ban bars, etc.  That is a strawman. 

It is not a strawman. Elder Bednar in his statement speaks of the secular freedoms and religious freedoms are being more harshly dealt with than others. (I paraphrased).

Quote

I am not pretending that there have been no examples of violations against some people's religious liberties and that everything has been equal and fair in application.   Yes, those violations should be addressed and a more balanced and fair approach should be considered.  My problem is that Elder Bednar's approach doesn't sound balanced or reasonable. 

Then your reasons and Elder Bednar's are the same. You advocate in that sentence a more balance and fair approach should be considered. Elder Bednar is wanting religious freedom to be elevated to its proper importance just as secular freedoms have been. He is definitely not publicly recommending and supporting putting lives at risk (advocating). If anything Elder Bednar is advocating the important role religious freedom has in law (it was an address to the law school btw). 

Quote

One more point I want to address.  It seems you are arguing that by using the word "paramount" Elder Bednar was only suggesting that religious liberty is "fundamental" among our rights, and that perhaps he didn't use the word to mean supreme or most important.  However he clearly did say it is "no freedom is more important" and he also said this: "Religious freedom is paramount among our fundamental rights." 

Yes, shocking that an Apostle of the Lord is emphasising the importance and the role religion should have.

Again, Elder Bednar was speaking to a BYU Law School Conference were the subject of the First Amendment Right and Constitutionality of religious freedom is in the public's hearts and minds at this time. Is it that surprising that an Apostle of the Lord place an emphasis on this?

Quote

So, it clearly demonstrated by his use of the word "paramount" and "fundamental" in the same sentence, that he was using the word to mean "supreme" or of "highest importance" among our fundamental rights.  I can't disagree more. 

Yet again, mocking redundancy here, that an Apostle of the Lord would emphasis fundamental rights of religion to a BYU Law Conference. Not to be nit-picky, but Religious rights (two of them) are put in the number one spot (the "First" Amendment), and in that very first amendment they are the first of the rights mentioned. Yup they were placed in a paramount position in an amendment that is first (paramount) among the other fundamental rights. Of course I am taking liberty (pun intended) of the wording of paramount and fundamental.

Pogi, love you bro, I'm just saying don't put too much emphasis on Elder Bednar placing religion paramount over other fundamental rights. They all are fundamental and paramount in our time of need. I am sure if the Governor of Utah forced you to allow soldiers in your house and they get to pick their bedrooms and they expected you to feed them and do their washing of their clothes etc., you would naturally place the Third Amendment in a paramount position at that time. Just relax, the second coming is closer.

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, Anijen said:

But there is still risk at Walmart, Costco. There is still risk.

Risk of human life, how much risk is acceptable? It is terrible to meet at church but the risk at Walmart because it is lower is acceptable?

The point is not to eliminate risk.  But to mitigate.  Risk vs benefit.  What is the risk of shutting down all grocery stores (even temporarily), or quarantining their workers, vs the risk of deeming them essential? 

It is not terrible to meet at church.  You are missing the point.  Risk vs benefit.  People are not going to unreasonably suffer from a temporary closure of church in the same way they would from a temporary closure of grocery stores or hospitals, etc.  The spirit is resilient through even months of church closures as they can be fed in other ways.  The physical body is not quite as resilient without food or medical needs. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

 

Quote

The high risk person going to Walmart is still at risk. Our ward has put out the notice to all those who are in a high risk category or even if they are not but believe the risk is too great to please stay home. Isn't that a better solution to give that agency to the person if they feel at risk to stay home rather than ban all from church?

I am not that worried about the high risk or not person making the choice for themselves to expose themselves to possible infection. If they want to risk infection and death, up to them. 
 

It is when their choices impact others who have no choice in determining whether the virus enters their vicinity that I am concerned with.
 

I feel the same way about drunk driving. If the only person at danger is the drunk, then if they want to excuse them based on diminished capacity so they get out there and do it again, so be it.  It that isn’t what happens. The drunk is driving a lethal weapon and is a threat to others.  Such dangers to others is usually easily recognized, but the conversation aboutCovid and liberties is so often framed in my experience as the right for someone to assume the risk for themselves when it is much, much more.

 

I am concerned about the possibly infected, much more likely to be low risk person thinking it is okay to be casual with the rules, skip the mask because they just know they’re not sick, passing it on to my husband, the healthy one like thousands of other healthy ones running the errands so the high risk individuals can stay at home, the healthy ones who then come home infected where hand washing ain’t going to reach the bug they breathed in while singing in the next pew over from the unmasked asymptomatic tenor.  High risk that aren’t venturing off their property to avoid people not living the rules still getting exposed because someone thought wearing a mask was annoying or they were too important and necessary to self quarantine after visiting with the neighbour who was sick ‘the next day’.
 

If healthy people are more likely to pick up an infection at church than Walmart (can you point to any cluster outbreaks at Walmart) and bring it home to high risk home mates, then that should be part of the consideration.