Fear Is Deadlier Than Viruses

[peter_speckhard]

Can someone restate for us, perhaps again, the reason for these attempts to justify refusing vaccinations and to minimize the effects of the pandemic, and to cast doubt on the efficacy of the vaccines and the other efforts to mitigate the effects of the disease? Why is that being done?
Vaccines are indeed mandated for many many things in our country. Presumably those mandates have been tested in the courts.
What is different now?
What basic human rights are at stake? What about our experts makes them so subject to suspicion?
P. S. I can understand why some minorities might be skeptical of the vaccines. They have reasons in their history.

As for your last question first, the fact that you even need to ask that makes clear you are completely in the dark about life outside your bubble.

I didn't refuse the vaccine, bit I know people who chose not to get vaccinated, and even if I don't fully understand or agree with their reasons, I prefer they make their own choices to mandating that they behave as though they agree with me.

I also have a gut reaction against anything that smells of propaganda, like overstatements and misleading statements to get people to behave a certain way. When vaccinated people live in fear of the unvaccinated, they make an unconvincing case for vaccination, but when people acknowledge the flaws and the unreliability of vaccines while getting vaccinated themselves, I think they make a more convincing case. When someone insists that there is no danger when you've seen the danger, they lose credibility. Better to acknowledge the danger and help people overcome their suspicion of it. But if everyone who points out the danger is called a purveyor of misinformation even though they are speaking the truth, all that does is undermine anyone's confidence in any information.

I also look at people's behavior rather than their statements. People who take private jets to carbon reduction conferences, or who party maskless after supporting mask mandates, or who speechify about supporting public schools while sending their own children to private schools, lose all credibility.

[peter_speckhard]

And Peter seems to make a great leap,, probably the great leap of all great leaps. He thinks that if there is a mandates to get vaccinated pretty soon that will be mandates on what to eat for breakfast. It's the old domino theory again.

You realize nearly all of your arguments have been applications of the domino theory, right? That since we have seatbelt mandates, ergo we can have vaccine mandates. Since we have smoking bans, we can ban more behaviors without rehashing the whole liberty question; we just use the precedent of this rule to justify that rule. You've used the domino theory to insist that what you want now is a just a continuation and extension of what we've already accepted, but you object to my pointing out what sorts of things lie further down that road.

[David Garner]

And Peter seems to make a great leap,, probably the great leap of all great leaps. He thinks that if there is a mandates to get vaccinated pretty soon that will be mandates on what to eat for breakfast. It's the old domino theory again.

You realize nearly all of your arguments have been applications of the domino theory, right? That since we have seatbelt mandates, ergo we can have vaccine mandates. Since we have smoking bans, we can ban more behaviors without rehashing the whole liberty question; we just use the precedent of this rule to justify that rule. You've use the domino theory to insist that what you want now is a just a continuation and extension of what we've already accepted, but you object to my pointing out what sorts of things lie further down that road.

This is not an accident.  As you know already, it is what Dreher calls "the Law of Merited Impossibility," that is, "this will never happen, and when it does you bigots will deserve it."

Gaslighting is their stock in trade.

[David Garner]

I should note, by "they" I don't mean to include Fr. Dana, who I have not seen engage in any gaslighting here. Since I discussed him in conjunction with Pr. Austin above, I thought I should note this doesn't refer to him.

[Dave Benke]

I'm interested in the comparisons with smoking bans in public places and mandates with regard to the CORONA virus.  The mandates with regard to smoking have produced two results that are positive, from studies I've read -
a) better health outcomes with declines in lung and heart disease
b) with the behavior being placed semi out of sight, less people take up smoking to begin with. 

I like those outcomes.  Having buried plenty of parishioners through the years (40) who were moderate to heavy smokers and died of smoking-related health conditions in lungs/heart/tongue/throat, I don't think it wrong to limit indoor smoking and have supported it throughout.  Theoretically, is this primarily a limit on someone's freedom or primarily a responsible way to mandate good health options?  In NYC, we don't have "open carry" when it comes to alcohol on the streets or in public places or in your automobile outside those locations that are serving food or are for the purpose of drinking alcohol (ie bars/taverns).  Again, this seems to me to be a health mandate with emphasis both on what you might do to yourself and what you might do to others.

As far as I know, the faith communities across the board are in favor of both the bans on smoking and open carry alcohol.  Are there serious dissenters?

Dave Benke

[peter_speckhard]

I'm interested in the comparisons with smoking bans in public places and mandates with regard to the CORONA virus.  The mandates with regard to smoking have produced two results that are positive, from studies I've read -
a) better health outcomes with declines in lung and heart disease
b) with the behavior being placed semi out of sight, less people take up smoking to begin with. 

I like those outcomes.  Having buried plenty of parishioners through the years (40) who were moderate to heavy smokers and died of smoking-related health conditions in lungs/heart/tongue/throat, I don't think it wrong to limit indoor smoking and have supported it throughout.  Theoretically, is this primarily a limit on someone's freedom or primarily a responsible way to mandate good health options?  In NYC, we don't have "open carry" when it comes to alcohol on the streets or in public places or in your automobile outside those locations that are serving food or are for the purpose of drinking alcohol (ie bars/taverns).  Again, this seems to me to be a health mandate with emphasis both on what you might do to yourself and what you might do to others.

As far as I know, the faith communities across the board are in favor of both the bans on smoking and open carry alcohol.  Are there serious dissenters?

Dave Benke

The problem is an underlying materialist mindset that sees health and other tangibles as the only factor and liberty as a straw man distraction. A zoo animal probably lives longer, eats better, and is less likely to get mauled by some other animal than any animal in the wild. But there is something sad about seeing a caged animal. China's social credit system promotes good health and so forth, but it is dystopian, not utopian. It at least infantilizes if not dehumanizes people when the state grows too intrusive.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I could also share anecdotes. A man I know also has a chronic disease. His immune system is compromised. He was one of the first to get the vaccine. He volunteered to be in a study group to see how the vaccines might affect his immune system. He recently had his young children vaccinated as soon as they were eligible. He mostly works at home. He believes in the science (since he has a Ph.D. in one of the sciences) that the vaccines are safe and effective - even for someone like him.

So you ask for examples of people who love God and neighbor but don't want to get the vaccine, and I provide one.  You reduce it to an anecdote and provide a counter-example of your friend, in Hallmark Christmas Special form (local man has chronic disease, but instead of giving into fear, he volunteers to be a group study and decides to bravely get the vaccine anyway) (fade out to image of him kissing the local drug store operator under a snow-covered live oak tree).

It's almost as if I was right when I said:

It would honestly be a waste of time.  You've made your judgment.

Your example of opposing the virus had nothing to do with his love of God or neighbor. He had legitimate reasons against the virus, but none of them had to do with his faith in God through Christ.

[David Garner]

I could also share anecdotes. A man I know also has a chronic disease. His immune system is compromised. He was one of the first to get the vaccine. He volunteered to be in a study group to see how the vaccines might affect his immune system. He recently had his young children vaccinated as soon as they were eligible. He mostly works at home. He believes in the science (since he has a Ph.D. in one of the sciences) that the vaccines are safe and effective - even for someone like him.

So you ask for examples of people who love God and neighbor but don't want to get the vaccine, and I provide one.  You reduce it to an anecdote and provide a counter-example of your friend, in Hallmark Christmas Special form (local man has chronic disease, but instead of giving into fear, he volunteers to be a group study and decides to bravely get the vaccine anyway) (fade out to image of him kissing the local drug store operator under a snow-covered live oak tree).

It's almost as if I was right when I said:

It would honestly be a waste of time.  You've made your judgment.

Your example of opposing the virus had nothing to do with his love of God or neighbor. He had legitimate reasons against the virus, but none of them had to do with his faith in God through Christ.

Of course.  Because he could not prioritize his own health, taking care of his family, the ability to take care of his family, etc., above people like you irrationally feeling better about themselves.  His wife isn't his neighbor.  His kids aren't his neighbor.  You are his neighbor, and he'd better do what you say or else.

The fact that you view the world this way is honestly incredible.  To you, HE is Jesus.  And as I said well upstream, you leave him bleeding in the ditch.

[Brian Stoffregen]

P. S. I can understand why some minorities might be skeptical of the vaccines. They have reasons in their history.

Good.  That's a good start. 

As to the rest, I'll say again, you are the one casting doubt on the efficacy of the vaccines.  Because you pretend that the unvaccinated are a danger to you even though you are vaccinated.

I'm not afraid of the unvaccinated.  I believe my vaccines worked.  But it isn't about them being a threat to you, as I said just immediately upstream.  It's about you and your fellow travelers getting to tell other people what to do.  At its core, it's just naked elitism.

Well, during my years of preaching, I often told people what to do.

[David Garner]

P. S. I can understand why some minorities might be skeptical of the vaccines. They have reasons in their history.

Good.  That's a good start. 

As to the rest, I'll say again, you are the one casting doubt on the efficacy of the vaccines.  Because you pretend that the unvaccinated are a danger to you even though you are vaccinated.

I'm not afraid of the unvaccinated.  I believe my vaccines worked.  But it isn't about them being a threat to you, as I said just immediately upstream.  It's about you and your fellow travelers getting to tell other people what to do.  At its core, it's just naked elitism.

Well, during my years of preaching, I often told people what to do.

Yes, I'm sure that's precisely the same thing.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I could also share anecdotes. A man I know also has a chronic disease. His immune system is compromised. He was one of the first to get the vaccine. He volunteered to be in a study group to see how the vaccines might affect his immune system. He recently had his young children vaccinated as soon as they were eligible. He mostly works at home. He believes in the science (since he has a Ph.D. in one of the sciences) that the vaccines are safe and effective - even for someone like him.

So you ask for examples of people who love God and neighbor but don't want to get the vaccine, and I provide one.  You reduce it to an anecdote and provide a counter-example of your friend, in Hallmark Christmas Special form (local man has chronic disease, but instead of giving into fear, he volunteers to be a group study and decides to bravely get the vaccine anyway) (fade out to image of him kissing the local drug store operator under a snow-covered live oak tree).

It's almost as if I was right when I said:

It would honestly be a waste of time.  You've made your judgment.

Your example of opposing the virus had nothing to do with his love of God or neighbor. He had legitimate reasons against the virus, but none of them had to do with his faith in God through Christ.

Of course.  Because he could not prioritize his own health, taking care of his family, the ability to take care of his family, etc., above people like you irrationally feeling better about themselves.  His wife isn't his neighbor.  His kids aren't his neighbor.  You are his neighbor, and he'd better do what you say or else.

The fact that you view the world this way is honestly incredible.  To you, HE is Jesus.  And as I said well upstream, you leave him bleeding in the ditch.

Well, I got the vaccine, and took my wife and mother to get the vaccine, and encourage our sons to get the vaccine; precisely because I have a priority on our health, and taking care of the family, and with a concern for the neighbors I might run into in public places.


As I read the parable, it is Jesus who takes the bleeding man out of the ditch and does everything possible to bring him back to health - including paying to have the innkeeper continue to care for the injured man. Among other interpretations, I can easily see us as the innkeeper. People who have been told and empowered and promised the resources to bring health and healing to all the suffering people in the world.


We've seen in happen with other viruses, when enough people are vaccinated, the virus no longer infects people. Perhaps more properly, our human antibodies are able to keep the virus from growing enough to be a problem in our bodies. In addition, the viruses inability to grow also limits its ability to mutate into variant forms.

[David Garner]

I could also share anecdotes. A man I know also has a chronic disease. His immune system is compromised. He was one of the first to get the vaccine. He volunteered to be in a study group to see how the vaccines might affect his immune system. He recently had his young children vaccinated as soon as they were eligible. He mostly works at home. He believes in the science (since he has a Ph.D. in one of the sciences) that the vaccines are safe and effective - even for someone like him.

So you ask for examples of people who love God and neighbor but don't want to get the vaccine, and I provide one.  You reduce it to an anecdote and provide a counter-example of your friend, in Hallmark Christmas Special form (local man has chronic disease, but instead of giving into fear, he volunteers to be a group study and decides to bravely get the vaccine anyway) (fade out to image of him kissing the local drug store operator under a snow-covered live oak tree).

It's almost as if I was right when I said:

It would honestly be a waste of time.  You've made your judgment.

Your example of opposing the virus had nothing to do with his love of God or neighbor. He had legitimate reasons against the virus, but none of them had to do with his faith in God through Christ.

Of course.  Because he could not prioritize his own health, taking care of his family, the ability to take care of his family, etc., above people like you irrationally feeling better about themselves.  His wife isn't his neighbor.  His kids aren't his neighbor.  You are his neighbor, and he'd better do what you say or else.

The fact that you view the world this way is honestly incredible.  To you, HE is Jesus.  And as I said well upstream, you leave him bleeding in the ditch.

Well, I got the vaccine, and took my wife and mother to get the vaccine, and encourage our sons to get the vaccine; precisely because I have a priority on our health, and taking care of the family, and with a concern for the neighbors I might run into in public places.


As I read the parable, it is Jesus who takes the bleeding man out of the ditch and does everything possible to bring him back to health - including paying to have the innkeeper continue to care for the injured man. Among other interpretations, I can easily see us as the innkeeper. People who have been told and empowered and promised the resources to bring health and healing to all the suffering people in the world.


We've seen in happen with other viruses, when enough people are vaccinated, the virus no longer infects people. Perhaps more properly, our human antibodies are able to keep the virus from growing enough to be a problem in our bodies. In addition, the viruses inability to grow also limits its ability to mutate into variant forms.

Does it bother you that you're always the hero in Jesus' parables?

I'm being very serious here.  I don't mean to be sarcastic in the slightest.  Do you really think that's how He intends for you to read them?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Does it bother you that you're always the hero in Jesus' parables?

I'm being very serious here.  I don't mean to be sarcastic in the slightest.  Do you really think that's how He intends for you to read them?

As I noted, the identification with the innkeeper is one way of interpreting the parable. Most often when I've preached on this text - especially at a couple of funerals for youth - I've tried to put all of us in the ditch with the beat up, suffering guy; with Jesus coming into the ditch to help bring us out. That's another way of interpreting the parable.


Gone are the days when scholars thought that there was only one right way to interpret scriptures.

[David Garner]

Does it bother you that you're always the hero in Jesus' parables?

I'm being very serious here.  I don't mean to be sarcastic in the slightest.  Do you really think that's how He intends for you to read them?

As I noted, the identification with the innkeeper is one way of interpreting the parable. Most often when I've preached on this text - especially at a couple of funerals for youth - I've tried to put all of us in the ditch with the beat up, suffering guy; with Jesus coming into the ditch to help bring us out. That's another way of interpreting the parable.


Gone are the days when scholars thought that there was only one right way to interpret scriptures.

I assume that's a no.  I find that tragic.

[Robert Johnson]

If it was Kamala Harris out there telling people "Don't take a Trump Vaccine" it wouldn't take long before we saw Red State mandates...

She did say that, before she said something opposite.