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.