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

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Again where does it stop, where is the line drawn? If we allow such fear of "what they can't see," or what we can't see to justify making the rules that is a place I'd fight to not be a part of.

It is pretty easy to see where the line gets drawn when we have mass outbreaks after large church gatherings. 
 

Draw the line at masks required, not recommended and let people know they will be asked to leave. No singing. Social distancing. Short meetings. Those churches who refuse to abide by those rules stay closed. 
 

The problem is if people would allow that level of informed policing on churches. If not, then it is understandable to me why the rule gets shut it all down instead of free for all. 
 

Unfortunately shut it all down means the uninformed make bad decisions and stop last rites or parking lot church. This is a great deal imo to be attributed to really bad communication by government and media on what restrictions should exist. 
 

Two wrongs don’t make a right, but sometimes one wrong becomes a right due to another wrong, as in it is wrong to imprison someone, but if they have committed a crime, that wrongness may now be a rightness. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

See my post...I have no problem with defending those types of religious rights, though even with those there must be some give. 
 

It is framing the question of religious liberty in broader terms, justifying freedoms by comparing to situations they shouldn’t be compared with. Much of Elder Bednar’s comments I agree with. I think there should have been greater care to define where the line is in defending and compromise though.
 

When government starts allowing indoor sporting events with large numbers, then I will have a hissy fit about churches not being able to meet together. 

Each situation is fraught with its own risks, including visiting grocery stores and car repair shops. So governments determine which services are essential. After that, steps are taken to minimize the risk in each given situation. Elder Bednar is  saying, and I agree with him, that tending to spiritual needs ought to be classed among the essential services. 
 

And by the way, I’ve yet to hear a persuasive reason for discarding all precautionary restrictions for BLM protestors while continuing to forbid religious congregating. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

The problem is that he is using the term "essential" in the way that we all think of it, but the designation and use of the term in a pandemic situation has different applications and consequence that he is not considering.  Sure gathering for church is essential in the way he is using the term.  It is not essential in the way the government is using the term.  I think Elder Bednar would probably agree that if a church worker was a high-risk contact and on quarantine, he should not be allowed to attend church while on quarantine and place others at undue risk.  Well, by designating them "essential workers", they are free to continue going to church even on quarantine. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Elder Bednar is  saying, and I agree with him, that tending to spiritual needs ought to be classed among the essential services

I disagree as that is too board a category. Shopping for food is considered essential, shopping for books to uplift and entertain and educate to read not so much. 
 

Some religious needs should be classified as essential, but religious needs in general not...just like shopping.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

The problem is that he is using the term "essential" in the way that we all think of it, but the designation and use of the term in a pandemic situation has different applications and consequence that he is not considering.  Sure gathering for church is essential in the way he is using the term.  It is not essential in the way the government is using the term.  I think Elder Bednar would probably agree that if a church worker was a high-risk contact and on quarantine, he should not attend church and place others at undue risk.  Well, by designating them "essential workers", then we are saying that he has the duty to attend church even if on quarantine, as his services outweigh the risk. 

No, a Church worker sick with the COVID virus has no greater duty to attend church than does a sick grocery store clerk or some other “essential service” worker to go to work. 
 

By trying to draw a semantic distinction in the meaning of “essential,” I don’t think you  are recognizing fully the need for spiritual nurturing at a time of crisis. I’m afraid your devotion as a health care professional may be limiting to some degree your recognition of the needs people have in other aspects of life beyond physical wellness. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I disagree as that is too board a category. Shopping for food is considered essential, shopping for books to uplift and entertain and educate to read not so much. 
 

Some religious needs should be classified as essential, but religious needs in general not. 

But when people are being fined for attending drive-in Church services, it’s a pretty good indication government is using too blunt of a tool to determine what is or is not essential. 
 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, a Church worker sick with the COVID virus has no greater duty to attend church than does a sick grocery store clerk or some other “essential service” worker to go to work. 

I didn't say he was sick.  I said that he was a high-risk exposed contact to someone with Covid and on quarantine.  If he was sick, he would be on isolation (not quarantine) and restricted from work, even if he was deemed essential.

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By trying to draw a semantic distinction in the meaning of “essential,” I don’t think you  are recognizing fully the need for spiritual nurturing at a time of crisis. I’m afraid your devotion as a health care professional may be limiting to some degree your recognition of the needs people have in other aspects of life beyond physical wellness. 

 I disagree. I am fully aware and agree that spiritual needs are critical in a time of crisis.  I disagree that gathering at church is the ONLY way those needs can be met, or that missing a week or 2 or even a few months is high risk to spiritual wellbeing, in weighing risk vs. benefit. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

I think my point would be much more clear if this pandemic had an extremely high mortality rate.  In the face of that kind of threat, I think it becomes much more clear as to what should be considered essential and why. 

Magnify the threat to where you are afraid for your life and people are dying all around you.  Now how do you feel about church being essential?  Guaranteed there would still be idiots celebrating their religious liberty, gathering and singing and spreading the disease.

[Anijen]

IMO, Elder Bednar is 100% correct in his remarks 

Why?

• It was to the BYU Law School Conference.  The issue was on the religious clauses in the First Amendment. How appropriate for a talk to a law school.
• A private religious university, having a conference on the importance of religious legal rights.
• Elder Bednar is an Apostle. How appropriate that he emphasized the importance of religious rights.
• A private religious university having a conference on the importance of religious legal rights by an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ

Is this an appeal to authority when I say Elder Bednar is 100% correct? Probably so, not denying that.  I am trying to point out why (he is an Apostle) and who is audience is (law School). I am not surprised of why Elder Bednar called his talk; Covid-19 Crisis A Wake Up Call For Religious Freedom. I am surprised at the assertion from this talk that Elder Bednar advocates risking lives.

Japan has a population of 126+ million people in a lot smaller and condensed space than the United States and has had a total of 935 deaths and that is without a single government enforced or mandatory lockdown. Japan has emphasized voluntary measures. We could learn from Japan. Clearly the pandemic has been politicized here in the United States.

Here are a few of Elder Bednar's remarks:

Elder Bednar continued, “While believers and their religious organizations must be good citizens in a time of crisis, never again can we allow government officials to treat the exercise of religion as simply nonessential. Never again must the fundamental right to worship God be trivialized below the ability to buy gasoline.”

Elder Bednar said the COVID-19 crisis demonstrates the fragility of religious freedom and the need to shore it up.

“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,” he concluded. “Now is the time for us to heed the wake-up call, to remember and to act.”

Edited June 18, 2020 by Anijen

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But when people are being fined for attending drive-in Church services, it’s a pretty good indication government is using to blunt of a tool to determine what is or is not essential. 
 

I agree. Argue against too blunt a tool by using a surgical scalpel instead of an equally blunt tool. 

But again, will churches allow government to come into meetings to ensure best practices are being enforced or will most get upset at supervision?  If most demand they be trusted without verification, then I understand why the option is no indoor gatherings. 
 

And as my daughter pointed out, she understood parking lot restrictions because there is a possibility of getting out of the car.  However, I think that is too much restriction though a drive by supervision could be an option. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

 

26 minutes ago, Anijen said:

 

• It was to the BYU Law School Conference.  The issue was on the religious clauses in the First Amendment. How appropriate for a talk to a law school.
• A private religious university, having a conference on the importance of religious legal rights.
• Elder Bednar is an Apostle. How appropriate that he emphasized the importance of religious rights.
• A private religious university having a conference on the importance of religious legal rights by an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ

1) I agree, very appropriate theme for a talk.

2) Again, I agree

3) I wouldn't have a problem if all he did was emphasize the importance

4) I agree, nothing wrong here. 

26 minutes ago, Anijen said:

“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,” he concluded. “Now is the time for us to heed the wake-up call, to remember and to act.”

There again, he seems to place religious liberty above life itself.

To me, this reads: "in our understandable desire to preserve life, we have forgotten what is even more important and most precious - religious liberty"  Is that not what he is saying?  Is that not the theme and title of his talk?  Of course he is speaking of religious liberty here in his closing remarks, as being "most precious". 

When you add his other comments about the preeminent status of religious rights , I don't know how anyone could walk away thinking he meant something else.  

That is my problem with his talk.  This is more that emphasizing the importance of religion.  It is escalating to a preeminent status. 

If that truly is not what he is saying, he needs to be much more carful in his delivery, because that is the message I got throughout his talk.  

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by pogi

[Amulek]

The way I was raised is that my allegiance goes to God, Family, and Country (in that order). 

God existed long before the ink on our Constitution dried. 

If God wanted me to go to church during a pandemic and the government didn't, you would be able to find me either on a pew or in a prison. It's that simple. 

 

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The way I was raised is that my allegiance goes to God, Family, and Country (in that order). 

God existed long before the ink on our Constitution dried. 

If God wanted me to go to church during a pandemic and the government didn't, you would be able to find me either on a pew or in a prison. It's that simple. 

I feel the same, but that is not the scenario we are dealing with.  This isn't a question about the preeminence of God or his will.

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The way I was raised is that my allegiance goes to God, Family, and Country (in that order). 

God existed long before the ink on our Constitution dried. 

If God wanted me to go to church during a pandemic and the government didn't, you would be able to find me either on a pew or in a prison. It's that simple. 

 

"I may much regret that the laws of my country should be in conflict with the laws of God , but , whenever they do , I shall invariably choose the latter."  - Apostle Rudger M. Clawson.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

I feel the same, but that is not the scenario we are dealing with.  This isn't a question about the preeminence of God or his will.

It never is, until it suddenly becomes so.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I agree. Argue against too blunt a tool by using a surgical scalpel instead of an equally blunt tool. 

But again, will churches allow government to come into meetings to ensure best practices are being enforced or will most get upset at supervision?  If most demand they be trusted without verification, then I understand why the option is no indoor gatherings. 
 

And as my daughter pointed out, she understood parking lot restrictions because there is a possibility of getting out of the car.  However, I think that is too much restriction though a drive by supervision could be an option. 

The people were not fined for getting out of their cars. They were fined for being there at all. 

[CA Steve]

If Bednar is correct why are they cancelling attendance at the next conference?

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It never is, until it suddenly becomes so.

Are you referencing the scenario or the question, or both?  Are you speaking individually or collectively?  Either way, it doesn't change my opinion however.  I don't think it is ethical to create unreasonable risk to the lives of others as a just-in-case measure that this scenario might arise. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

And by the way, I’ve yet to hear a persuasive reason for discarding all precautionary restrictions for BLM protestors while continuing to forbid religious congregating. 

Not making that argument here as far as I can see. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

There again, he seems to place religious liberty above life itself.

I think he is saying “the government’s swift, well-intentioned, but often dangerous breaching of the boundaries that protect the free exercise of religion” pertains to those instances where there has been a double-standard (when the risks and protections of physical life in carrying out religious activities are comparable to those in other areas of life).

A couple of thoughts on "rights":  (1) Gathering is accomplished under the direction of the presiding high priest (President Nelson, or someone in similar position of authority for other faiths). Otherwise, the universal right to gather lacks a corresponding community responsibility to the "universe" (all other people). (2) The extraordinary and unprecedented restrictions on religious freedom are temporary, not evil in and of themselves, yet upon reflection in context of an increasingly secular society, is illustrative of what can be done without wisdom or abusively and made permanent if we are not diligent and careful.

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

If Bednar is correct why are they cancelling attendance at the next conference?

I suppose for the same reason that the Church has complied with directives and cooperated with civil authorities throughout this pandemic. “To be good neighbors.”
 

It is not necessary to defy a law in order to exercise one’s First Amendment right  to criticize it or its application. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not making that argument here as far as I can see. 

It goes to the double standard in a society that disrespects religion and faith while lionizing political correctness. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

am trying to point out why (he is an Apostle) and who is audience is (law School).

When the talk is published in the church newsroom, the public is the audience imo.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

It never is, until it suddenly becomes so.

So in your view do we overthrow the government now because one day it may “suddenly become” a full on tyranny?

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

When the talk is published in the church newsroom, the public is the audience imo.

I wonder if Elder Bednar knew the talk would be published on the newsroom?