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

[Calm]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

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

I would be surprised if he didn’t.

I still think he should have used greater precision in his applications....law students are being taught the devil is in the details as far as I see, so why not be precise in his talk to them?

[bluebell]

58 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

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

Probably because the current guidelines say no more than 99 people in attendance for a religious gathering (maybe if they called it a protest they could get more people in but they don't seem interested in exploiting that loophole).  Trying to figure out who would get tickets under those circumstances would be rough, and pretty pointless. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

So?  I never said otherwise and in fact say that the restriction went too far. 
 

Are you suggesting that fact makes any difference to my argument?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

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.

You want to do things the way Japan managed, you are going to have to dump a huge amount of American culture. Imo, that is like comparing apples and oranges. Both fruits that grow on trees, but so many differences including susceptibility to pests and environments where they flourish. 
 

Several Japanese social habits already contribute to safety measures, such as expected wearing of masks when ill, obsession with hygiene, and little physical public contact. 
 

https://www.mybucketlistevents.com/cultural-differences-between-us-and-japan/

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Calm

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would be surprised if he didn’t.

I still think he should have used greater precision in his applications....law students are being taught the devil is in the details as far as I see, so why not be precise in his talk to them?

Who can say?  It would be really interesting to be able to ask him some of these questions and get the actual truth of what he meant.  We might be arguing about the truthfulness or falseness of something he wasn't even trying to say.  

If this board is any indication, it's really hard to say something succinctly with no need for further clarification when it's being picked a part by a group of diverse individuals, especially when not everyone believes in the sincerity of the speaker.  

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We might be arguing about the truthfulness or falseness of something he wasn't even trying to say.

I am not really concerned about intent, but rather the message actually conveyed. He did not provide**** limits to what he meant as religious freedom to gather while he used extreme examples for government limitations and therefore opened the door for inconsistency and arguments.
 

****reading full transcript to see if just not reported

Edited June 19, 2020 by Calm

[bsjkki]

Interesting 5th circuit ruling. The case was found 'moot' since  the governor's order had expired but the concurring opinion addressed many of the same issues as Elder Bednar. It begins on page 8. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-30358 -CV0.pdf

"For people of faith demoralized by coercive shutdown policies, that raises a question: If officials are now exempting protesters, how can they justify continuing to restrict worshippers? The answer is that they can’t. Government does not have carte blanche, even in a pandemic, to pick and choose which First Amendment rights are “open” and which remain “closed." Officials may take appropriate emergency public health measures to combat a pandemic. See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 30–31 (1905). See also Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166–67 (1944). But “[n]othing in Jacobson supports the view that an emergency displaces normal constitutional standards.” ...

Smith does not cover laws that grant exemptions to some, while denying them to people of faith. “Religious liberty deserves better than that—even under Smith.” Horvath v. City of Leander, 946 F.3d 787, 795 (5th Cir. 2020) (Ho, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part).2Instead, laws that burden religion while exempting the non-religious must pass strict scrutiny. See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546 (1993). The burden on religion “must be justified by a compelling governmental interest,” and the law “must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest.” Id.at 531–32. That is a heavy lift: Such laws “will survive strict scrutiny only in rare cases.” Id.at 546.I do not expect this to be one of those “rare cases.” Id. Pastor Mark Anthony Spell and his parishioners seek to worship as their faith directs. They cannot do so, however, due to a series of orders by Governor John Bel Edwards that forbid citizens from assembling in public—including inside churches. The Governor no doubt issued those orders out of sincere public health concerns. To survive First Amendment scrutiny, however, those concerns must be applied consistently, not selectively. And it is hard to see how that rule is met here if the record is developed to take account of the recent protests.'

If protests are exempt from social distancing requirements, then worship must be too. As the United States recently observed, “California’s political leaders have expressed support for such peaceful protests and, from all appearances, have not required them to adhere to the now operative 100-person limit. . . . t could raise First Amendment concerns if California were to hold other protests . . . to a different standard.” Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 24, Givens v. Newsom, No. 20-15949 (9th Cir. June 10, 2020). The same principle should apply to people of faith. See, e.g., Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 537 (“[Where] individualized exemptions from a general requirement are available, the government may not refuse to extend that system to cases of religious hardship without compelling reason.”

...The First Amendment does not allow our leaders to decide which rights to honor and which to ignore. In law, as in life, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. In these troubled times, nothing should unify the American people more than the principle that freedom for me, but not for thee, has no place under our Constitution.

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by bsjkki

[Anijen]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

Yes, you're of course correct. Historians narrow it to his primary audience to be able to better understand what he said and why he said it.

[Anijen]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would be surprised if he didn’t.

I still think he should have used greater precision in his applications....law students are being taught the devil is in the details as far as I see, so why not be precise in his talk to them?

I've never been taught that the devils in the details in all my years of law school.

[Calm]

Quote

believe it is vital for us to recognize that the sweeping governmental restrictions that were placed on religious gatherings at the outset of the COVID-19 crisis truly were extraordinary. In what seemed like an instant, most Western governments and many others simply banned communal worship. These restrictions eliminated public celebrations of Easter, Passover, Ramadan, and other holy days around the world.

No other event in our lifetime—and perhaps no other event since the founding of this nation—has caused quite this kind of widespread disruption of religious gatherings and worship.

The COVID-19 restrictions affected The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in a unique way. The Church’s April 2020 General Conference—a celebration of the bicentennial of the First Vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith—had to be broadcast to a global audience from a small auditorium with only a handful of people attending instead of from our large conference center with a congregation of more than 20,000 people.

Clearly, governments have an affirmative duty to protect public health and safety.[xii] And I believe public officials have most often sought to do the right things to protect the public from the virus. Drawing proper lines to protect both public health and religious exercise in a pandemic is very challenging.

But we cannot deny and we should not forget the speed and intensity with which government power was used to shut down fundamental aspects of religious exercise. These decisions and regulations were unprecedented. For nearly two months, Americans and many others throughout the free world learned firsthand what it means for government to directly prohibit the free exercise of religion.

It is disappointing that he frames the conference restriction as forced by government rather than a sensible choice made by church leaders.  There is no sense of a faith community working with government to achieve the best for its people...which is how I saw the Church acting from where I stood. 
 

Quote

I believe we must always remember a key principle: specifically, religion should not be treated less favorably than analogous secular activities.

For example, the orders of one state barred Catholic priests from anointing a parishioner with holy oil in the performance of last rites—even if the person was not sick with COVID-19, even if the priest and parishioner were protected with masks and gloves, and even if the oil was applied with a swab. In the same state, my Church could not perform baptisms even under the safest of conditions.

Protecting a person’s physical health from the coronavirus is, of course, important, but so is a person’s spiritual health. That same state allowed lawyers to meet with people to administer to their legal needs, allowed doctors to meet with people to administer to their health needs, and allowed caregivers to administer food to satisfy nutritional needs. But it did not allow a clergyperson to administer to a person’s religious needs, even when the risk of all these activities was essentially the same.

I like this. He is specifying analogous examples, apples to apples and the example given is relatively precise, though I wish it were more so (our members shouldn’t be frivolously calling on our leaders to attended to needs we don’t need at this time....I would suggest a baby naming blessing in our faith might fall into that category).

His last example is a negative one yet again:

Quote

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.

He never provides an example of what he views as an appropriate restriction by government on religious freedom. He emphasizes gathering as a fundamental principle of religion.  And he very strongly condemns allowing the government to continue to act as it has been acting....without providing insights on responsible government such that it can appear to those so inclined towards imo that any restriction in religious activity should be fought. 

He could have easily mentioned in his example that the government was limiting attendance to trials, that lawyers and judges were adapting by using online technology.  Same with doctors...where possible changes were made to limit gatherings.  That he did not is problematic imo and we are now discussing comparisons to shopping rather than actual analogous activities like indoor sporting events or educational  seminars because of it. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Anijen said:

I've never been taught that the devils in the details in all my years of law school.

Poor choice of words. My apologies. 
 

How would you phrase it?  My lawyer friends have often pointed out to me the importance of precision in the wording and specifics to avoid laws being used for something not intended. 

[carbon dioxide]

I have a big problem with the government telling people what is essential and what is not.  Those in power don't really care because they are getting paid regardless.  For a business owner, their business is essential.  For a worker who needs money to buy food, their job is essential.  Some governors thought it was their right to tell consumers what was essential and not essential in terms of purchase items.  They have no right to tell a consumer what products are essential.  A video game can be essential.  If a mom is trying to keep her kids occupied inside, you better believe buying a video game is essential.  Yet many politicians might say its not essential. 

[Anijen]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is disappointing that he frames the conference restriction as forced by government rather than a sensible choice made by church leaders. 

CFR where in the entirety of his speech does he use the word force?

Sometimes we read what we want to read, but that intent is different from the actual wording. I am guilty of this as well. Sometimes I want to hear my version and I am deaf to what is actually said. Overtime, as a Historian (my undergrad and grad degrees) and through my legal training, I have forced myself to use the words precisely how they are said, printed, (choose your method of recordation) to mean what is in the text and not to add or take away.

[Anijen]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Poor choice of words. My apologies. 
 

How would you phrase it?  My lawyer friends have often pointed out to me the importance of precision in the wording and specifics to avoid laws being used for something not intended. 

No apology needed. I love your posts and am quick to side with you in almost every instance. You have a great talent and I follow your post because you put a lot of effort in those posts (i.e., keeping us updated with the Vallow/Daybell case).

I understood your meaning and I was probably too quick to point out the literal when you of course meant the details are often hidden in the minutia, footnotes, double entrenda, and other dictum. So I should be the one to apologize. Sorry, and carry on...

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Anijen said:

CFR where in the entirety of his speech does he use the word force?

Sometimes we read what we want to read, but that intent is different from the actual wording. I am guilty of this as well. Sometimes I want to hear my version and I am deaf to what is actually said. Overtime, as a Historian (my undergrad and grad degrees) and through my legal training, I have forced myself to use the words precisely how they are said, printed, (choose your method of recordation) to mean what is in the text and not to add or take away.

He only mentions government restrictions as a reason for not holding conference and it is strongly worded. 
 

Remove the wording “force“ if you wish. , do you agree he conveys that government restrictions were the reason the conference was limited to the few?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am not really concerned about intent, but rather the message actually conveyed. 

Say what? This reminds of the “perception is reality” nonsense that the ad profession has been trying to foist off on us for many years. 
 

The virtue is in reading (and listening) for comprehension, not making a man “an offender for a word” as it were. 
 

But to me, it’s a moot point anyway, as Elder Bednar was very clear and sensible. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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

I never worked for “Newsroom,” but at the Church News we never reported on a speech by an apostle without him having opportunity to read and OK the story in advance.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

No apology needed. I love your posts and am quick to side with you in almost every instance. You have a great talent and I follow your post because you put a lot of effort in those posts (i.e., keeping us updated with the Vallow/Daybell case).

I understood your meaning and I was probably too quick to point out the literal when you of course meant the details are often hidden in the minutia, footnotes, double entrenda, and other dictum. So I should be the one to apologize. Sorry, and carry on...

I am being critical about Elder Bednar's talk because I think he lacks precision,  you were right to call me on that...and please continue if I am inaccurate in the future.

PS:  really appreciate your positive comments about my posts...really, really appreciate it (too many doctor appts for my daughter this week, puts a dark tinge on too much of life)

Edited June 19, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

CFR where in the entirety of his speech does he use the word force?

Sometimes we read what we want to read, but that intent is different from the actual wording. I am guilty of this as well. Sometimes I want to hear my version and I am deaf to what is actually said. Overtime, as a Historian (my undergrad and grad degrees) and through my legal training, I have forced myself to use the words precisely how they are said, printed, (choose your method of recordation) to mean what is in the text and not to add or take away.

The problem is that when we try to read his words precisely how they are said and printed, you try and convince us not to take it at face value, but to consider audience, etc.  You implore us to interpret his intentions as being different from what he actually said.  But when we try to interpret his intentions, you try to convince us to read his words precisely as written.

You can’t have it both ways.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The virtue is in reading (and listening) for comprehension, not making a man “an offender for a word” as it were. 

But we can't read between the lines if we want to be accurate.  I am not talking about perception, but what he actually said instead of what he may have intended to say as bluebell was referencing (see quote below).

Quote

Who can say?  It would be really interesting to be able to ask him some of these questions and get the actual truth of what he meant.  We might be arguing about the truthfulness or falseness of something he wasn't even trying to say. 

I get it is impossible to communicate precisely so everyone understands things the same way, but when action against the government is being called for...whatever that action is, precision needs to be sought in the talk as well as in discussion unlike in talks and discussions about personal growth and understanding where it is nice but not urgently necessary; we can't supply what isn't there in our discussions because others won't in their discussion.  This isn't a situation to 'liken scriptures' or consider someone's body of work.

And when there are gaps in instruction, people fill them in with what they already believe in my experience.  What Elder Bednar's did was present a general discussion about the current crisis and negative government behaviour towards religion during it.  His specific comparison to other categories dealt with one on one interaction where his general dealt more with gathering(s).  He presented a remedy of (my words) vigilance to ensure the extremes never happened again.  

But he left out two important items.  

One was at least one example of the government acting correctly so that it would be understood that Elder Bednar (and as an extension church leadership) believed government had and could act responsibly in placing limits on religious liberty.  

We shouldn't be afraid of any government action, but be ready to act in case of extremes.  This is not the time for a slippery slope argument.  And if the extreme is an inequality where something is foolishly being allowed but reasonable restrictions on religion, it is better to be pushing for greater stringency on others rather than insisting religion gets the same foolish treatment.

Two was an expression of the Church acting in its own wisdom to limit exposure to ensure there were no misunderstandings or agenda driven misinterpretations that any limit on religious expression is bad.  Including something along the lines as the Covid advice listed on the Church website are there without government requiring us to post it, but because we think these are what we should be doing for ourselves and others.

And if there was time, I would hope a paragraph or two about not just depending on the government or the Church to tell you what cautions to take, but to consider this would be a very good time to go the extra mile or five when possible for our community...meaning just because we can shop and eat out at restaurants, doesn't mean we should.  Supporting small business is important, but we can find ways that limits dangers to us and to their employees...like asking for and using curbside service. Nor should we remain isolated or encourage others to be isolated as mental health can suffer, so finding time to get out and go for walks, reaching out through tech with family and friends, those we minister to...even writing letters...now is the time to consciously think about our choices in life...but he is talking to a law school, so I understand that not being there.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The problem is that when we try to read his words precisely how they are said and printed, you try and convince us not to take it at face value, but to consider audience, etc.  You implore us to interpret his intentions as being different from what he actually said.  But when we try to interpret his intentions, you try to convince us to read his words precisely as written.

You can’t have it both ways.

Kind of like saying “essential service”  doesn’t really mean “essential service” when you apply it to religion? 😉 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Kind of like saying “essential service”  doesn’t really mean “essential service” when you apply it to religion? 😉 

"Essential" is a legal term with a legal definition with specific legal implications in one usage.  That it is also used in another way does not invalidate the precision of the previous use.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Essential" is a legal term with a legal definition with specific legal implications in one usage.  That it is also used in another way does not invalidate the precision of the previous use.

This was an allusion to something Pogi posted previously. 
 

So what is it about it’s “legal definition” that invalidates it for application to churches and other faith groups (assuming that’s what you’re saying). 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This was an allusion to something Pogi posted previously. 
 

So what is it about it’s “legal definition” that invalidates it for application to churches and other faith groups (assuming that’s what you’re saying). 

Not what I am saying.  But it confuses the issue if it is used in one context for one thing and then compared to a different context.

Like using professional teacher experiences to apply to any situation where someone acts as a teacher, such as a parent or church leader.  The first has legal rights and obligations while the latter don't (such as reporting suspected child abuse).

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But we can't read between the lines if we want to be accurate.  I am not talking about perception, but what he actually said instead of what he may have intended to say as bluebell was referencing (see quote below).

I get it is impossible to communicate precisely so everyone understands things the same way, but when action against the government is being called for...whatever that action is, precision needs to be sought in the talk as well as in discussion unlike in talks and discussions about personal growth and understanding where it is nice but not urgently necessary; we can't supply what isn't there in our discussions because others won't in their discussion.  This isn't a situation to 'liken scriptures' or consider someone's body of work.

And when there are gaps in instruction, people fill them in with what they already believe in my experience.  What Elder Bednar's did was present a general discussion about the current crisis and negative government behaviour towards religion during it.  His specific comparison to other categories dealt with one on one interaction where his general dealt more with gathering(s).  He presented a remedy of (my words) vigilance to ensure the extremes never happened again.  

But he left out two important items.  

One was at least one example of the government acting correctly so that it would be understood that Elder Bednar (and as an extension church leadership) believed government had and could act responsibly in placing limits on religious liberty.  

We shouldn't be afraid of any government action, but be ready to act in case of extremes.  This is not the time for a slippery slope argument.  And if the extreme is an inequality where something is foolishly being allowed but reasonable restrictions on religion, it is better to be pushing for greater stringency on others rather than insisting religion gets the same foolish treatment.

Two was an expression of the Church acting in its own wisdom to limit exposure to ensure there were no misunderstandings or agenda driven misinterpretations that any limit on religious expression is bad.  Including something along the lines as the Covid advice listed on the Church website are there without government requiring us to post it, but because we think these are what we should be doing for ourselves and others.

And if there was time, I would hope a paragraph or two about not just depending on the government or the Church to tell you what cautions to take, but to consider this would be a very good time to go the extra mile or five when possible for our community...meaning just because we can shop and eat out at restaurants, doesn't mean we should.  Supporting small business is important, but we can find ways that limits dangers to us and to their employees...like asking for and using curbside service. Nor should we remain isolated or encourage others to be isolated as mental health can suffer, so finding time to get out and go for walks, reaching out through tech with family and friends, those we minister to...even writing letters...now is the time to consciously think about our choices in life...but he is talking to a law school, so I understand that not being there.

Hmm. Kind of sounds like you would endeavor to recast his talk extensively to try to make it all things to all people. I’m not convinced that would have served his purpose. It seems to me he had a very focused message, that being to sound a warning about the fragility of religious freedom and how easily it can be cast aside under the stresses and strains of a major public crisis such as a pandemic.