NOM

“The Governor understands the importance of the Utah Department of Health conducting a campaign to educate Utahns about HIV prevention,” his spokeswoman, Anna Lehnardt, told FOX 13 in a statement. “He does not, however, approve the use of sexual innuendo as part of a taxpayer-funded campaign, and our office has asked the department to rework the campaign’s branding.”

blazerb wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:22 pm The only one that I would have a problem with is "This is the place." Clearly that's a religious reference. The government should not be in the business of religious teasing. Just because the church acts badly in the political arena doesn't mean everyone else should. The others are harmless.

2bizE wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:34 pm I hope bears don’t chase me.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:32 pm

blazerb wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:22 pm The only one that I would have a problem with is "This is the place." Clearly that's a religious reference. The government should not be in the business of religious teasing. Just because the church acts badly in the political arena doesn't mean everyone else should. The others are harmless.

I'm not sure religion owns that phrase. I'm not sure religion really wants to own that phrase.

If it's a religious reference, then the State of Utah needs to get rid of This is the Place Heritage Park, as it is promoting a religion.

2bizE wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:15 am Debate: was the “this is the place" statement by BY a religious statement, or was it the voice of the founder of the city and first governor of the territory? I could argue it was not a statement of the church, but rather of the future city.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:15 am

2bizE wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:15 am Debate: was the “this is the place" statement by BY a religious statement, or was it the voice of the founder of the city and first governor of the territory? I could argue it was not a statement of the church, but rather of the future city.

Yeah, that's basically the tangential discussion between blazerb and I.

Under normal rules and legal consideration, this would not be a phrase owned by the Church. I don't know of anywhere they've tried to claim ownership in any way. It's a common term. If they tried to claim it here, they would have no basis because they have never done anything to protect that claim.

Admittedly there is a lot of mingling of church and state in Utah, but the state is pretty clear that there is a secular basis to the term. They approach it as secular, as the founding of the city and state.

There is nothing in the safe sex campaign or the condom packaging that indicates the phrase is about any church doctrine. It may as well refer to the state park.

Now, religion often demands special consideration or special protection from criticism or humor. This is more common in authoritarian religions and places where one particular religion controls the government. This is certainly Oaks' argument on "religious freedom". He contends that religious speech deserves special deference and that what he says should be given special weight. Or that as religious leader he should be special consideration, that his statements and wishes trump non-religious ones. He couches this in special phrasing so as to appear more reasonable than he is. Under this sort of heightened protection, the argument that this is an attack (of some sort) on religion makes some sense.

I find that really shaky ground, though. If we want to call "This is the place" protected religious belief or phrasing, then we need to be consistent and remove it from secular, governmental usages. It's a very slippery slope, particularly in Utah, to start granting special ownership of history to the church.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:40 pm Admittedly I certainly got off into some tangents there, but my basic point is that the condom wrapper isn't making fun of the Church. It's making fun of the Utah State Park "This is the Place Heritage Park" and the founding of the government. It says it right there, it's a Heritage Park and not a Religious Park. In other words, the government is making fun of itself. Or was, because Herbert isn't having any of that. Not it's just making a mockery of itself.

blazerb wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:14 pm I would guess that the courts would accept this argument. I'll be honest. I think that the state park is promoting religion. If it were worth discussing, I'd like to hear what a lawyer would say. Moving on.

Visit the Mormon Battalion Museum, The Stoddard Gallery and see the iconic Monument that was erected under the supervision of a committee composed of Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish and Latter-day Saint representatives. Visit the Walk of Pioneer Faiths honoring early religious groups and leaders who contributed to the religious diversity of our great community.