Fear Is Deadlier Than Viruses

[Brian Stoffregen]

The reluctance to give arguments against the vaccines might indicate that there are no good arguments. You just pound the table and yell louder.

That judgment is also noted.

Even though I have my opinion, it doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing other views.

I am now being lazy and assuming when people cannot think of any justification for something millions of their neighbors are doing, such a person is not, in fact, interested in hearing other views, but rather in sniffing their own farts.  If you seriously cannot come up with an example of why someone refusing to get a vaccine is loving his neighbor, then you and your unjustifiably high opinion of your own opinions are the problem.

It is also my belief that it is much, much better to hear arguments directly from "the horse's mouth," than to make up my own about others. A friend, we just recently meant, came over for Thanksgiving dinner, (with a long-time friend). He was taught by his mother, growing up in Texas, that every other denomination except Baptists were cults. He came to question her argument when he attended Catholic masses in the military (because their service times were more convenient for him). Lutherans were also seen as a cult. I've also read articles by Lutherans that are anti-Catholic, which, when talking to Catholics, are untrue or at best, a mischaracterization of their beliefs. Similarly, a Catholic friend asked me about some Lutheran things that a priest had taught him about Lutheranism; and they were mischaracterizations.

[Dana Lockhart]

I think we lost the plot as a society when the entire vaccine argument got framed around "personal choice" versus "civic duty."

(Do we really have any sense of civic duty anymore in this tribal, consumerist, and individualized society?)

For most of my life, vaccines were like taxes. They we not choices but requirements:

Want to attend school? Show your vaccination record.
Want to study abroad? Vaccines were required for a visa.
Want to complete CPE (a requirement to be ordained)? Hospital requires proof of vaccination.

And this was, for the most part, completely uncontroversial and understood. There was a fringe anti-vax movement (just like there is a fringe movement that considers all taxation to be theft). Some people cheated. There were a few, limited exceptions made (like religious exemptions from FICA, etc). But mostly, you did what was expected because it was expected and for the common good. If you want a civil society, everyone has to pay taxes to keep the roads plowed, the schools open, and the ambulances running. If you want a society relatively unburdened by lethal, highly transmissible viruses… well, roll up your arm and get a shot.

We've lost the plot though. We all want freedoms and choices without responsibilities. My state literally created a lottery to entice people to get vaxxed…. a shot at a million dollars… and we are begging and pleading and lobbying and persuading… and it makes me wonder… mandates are as old as the Republic… upheld by the Supreme Court… and anything Pfizer or Moderna puts in its product is safer and better researched and more hygienic than the small pox vaccinations required by one Gen. George Washington.

So I do not doubt that there are thoughtful people, with love for their neighbors, who have made a choice not to get vaccinated for reasons they consider to be logical. I bet the same would be true if filing a 1040 were also seen as a "personal choice." But to have any kind of society, we have to have civic duties along with civil liberties.

[David Garner]

The reluctance to give arguments against the vaccines might indicate that there are no good arguments. You just pound the table and yell louder.

That judgment is also noted.

Even though I have my opinion, it doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing other views.

I am now being lazy and assuming when people cannot think of any justification for something millions of their neighbors are doing, such a person is not, in fact, interested in hearing other views, but rather in sniffing their own farts.  If you seriously cannot come up with an example of why someone refusing to get a vaccine is loving his neighbor, then you and your unjustifiably high opinion of your own opinions are the problem.

It is also my belief that it is much, much better to hear arguments directly from "the horse's mouth," than to make up my own about others. A friend, we just recently meant, came over for Thanksgiving dinner, (with a long-time friend). He was taught by his mother, growing up in Texas, that every other denomination except Baptists were cults. He came to question her argument when he attended Catholic masses in the military (because their service times were more convenient for him). Lutherans were also seen as a cult. I've also read articles by Lutherans that are anti-Catholic, which, when talking to Catholics, are untrue or at best, a mischaracterization of their beliefs. Similarly, a Catholic friend asked me about some Lutheran things that a priest had taught him about Lutheranism; and they were mischaracterizations.

Have you considered that you are the one accusing others of cultism here?  The problem is not that you are asking for arguments "from the horse's mouth," but rather that you render judgments without charity.

I'll give you one example, leaving some details out since this is a friend of mine and none of your business, to hopefully illustrate my point.  I know a man who works for a large corporation that is impacted by the vaccine mandates President Biden put into place earlier this year.  He has been told that he must be vaccinated or he will lose his job by year's end.  So this particular company, a government contractor, has gone beyond the mandate to essentially say "get vaccinated or else."  He was given the same justification the mandate does -- it's for "workplace safety."

He has a chronic disease that makes him concerned about the effects of the vaccine.  He's already had COVID, and therefore is not worried about immunity because he already has it.  But the real kicker is this -- he works from home.  That's right -- in the name of workplace safety, they are forcing a guy with chronic diseases who is at least as immune from reinfection as any vaccinated person to get a chemical injected in his body, to protect a workplace he never goes to.

You want to put the burden on him to demonstrate why his refusal to be vaccinated demonstrates love of God and neighbor.  But my question is to you -- why should he have to decide between feeding his family and getting a vaccine he doesn't need and which might harm him to placate your fears?  More to the point, why aren't you viewing HIM as your neighbor instead of viewing yourself as his? 

Worry about your duty to your neighbor, and leave my friend alone.  That's my response.

[peter_speckhard]

Am I clear on this? You would rather people get Covid than have businesses shut down? You would rather have people get Covid than go through the difficulties of schools being closed? Did I get that right?

Yes. The spread of the disease it not good, but it is going to happen and in the vast majority of cases does no harm. The key to mitigation is to flatten the curve so not everybody gets it at once, not to avoid it altogether, unless you are highly vulnerable and need to limit all contact. You can pooh-pooh the trauma being done to children all you want and treat the livelihoods being lost with sarcastic derision until the cows come home, but fewer and fewer people are going to stop living their lives so that you can feel a tad safer. Yes, we wear seatbelts, but we don't stop driving cars. We drive even though we know that doing so risks fatal accidents to ourselves and others that wouldn't happen if everyone stayed home. We'd rather live our lives with some risk than not live our lives, which is why normal people still drive places. And still go to work. And send the kids to school. And hold church services. The idea that nothing could be worse than the risk caused by the potential of spreading of the disease makes no sense to me. But you do you. 

You wrote: So some little kids might be traumatized or miss out on some school lessons because of the shutdown? Parents, wake up and deal with the trauma. Schools, find ways to make it up. It's better than spreading the illness. And if the shutdown was unnecessary, so what?
So businesses suffer because of vaccine requirement? Well, you can't sell food without meeting health standards, so businesses will just have to adapt.
And as for the Evil Of All Evils - that is, "the government is over-reaching and telling me to do something I don't want to do" - grow up.  I find that sentiment and reasoning wrongheaded and the attitude obscene. Think what you like. Many of us think differently and are going to act on our own values, not yours.

To the boldface: that's precisely the basic problem, which is the original sin: Self-centeredness. Again I ask, how is the value of refusing the vaccination in line with the values God has given us through Jesus? Namely, how does it show love for self, neighbor, and God?

The topic was not about vaccines specifically but about shutdowns, which Charles claimed were no big deal. Parents should just fix childhood trauma. Businesses should just go out of business. It is that easy, and a small price to pay for making him feel safer.

So you're saying that loving your neighbor means living according to your neighbor's values rather than your own? Do you live your life according to my values? Or do you selfishly live according to your own values?

Linus from Peanuts famously claimed that he loved mankind, it was just people he couldn't stand. How is forcing someone who has already had the disease to get vaccinated against their will an act of loving them? It isn't. It is an act of objectifying them as a mere dangerous organism. People do that in the name of loving mankind in the abstract at the expense of actually loving any concrete, particular person. If grandma is vulnerable but desperately wants to see her granddaughter, her granddaughter might get vaccinated against her own preferences as an act of love toward grandma. And if Billy's mom is terrified of side effects and doesn't want him to get vaccinated, he might decide not to get vaccinated as an act of love toward his mother even though he personally doesn't think getting vaccinated is a problem. The point is that an act of love has a concrete object, not an abstract object.

Once you define a non-act as an act, you've argued at the level of assumptions. There are billions of things you haven't done today. How are any of them acts of loving your neighbor? Not shooting them, I guess. Not running them over with your car. But how is your refusal to buy an ice cream cone today an act of loving your neighbor? He might need the customers. You are being selfish by not patronizing his business. The whole line of reasoning goes astray from the start. Not doing something that your neighbor wants you to do is not necessarily unloving. Otherwise resisting peer pressure would always be a selfish, sinful act.

If someone deliberately tries to infect his neighbor that is unloving. If someone puts his neighbor at risk on purpose, that is unloving. But the people not getting vaccinated are not setting out to put their neighbor at risk any more than people going for a pleasure drive in the country (who are admittedly putting people in danger of death purely for their own enjoyment) are setting out to put their neighbor at risk.     

[Dana Lockhart]

The reluctance to give arguments against the vaccines might indicate that there are no good arguments. You just pound the table and yell louder.

That judgment is also noted.

Even though I have my opinion, it doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing other views.

I am now being lazy and assuming when people cannot think of any justification for something millions of their neighbors are doing, such a person is not, in fact, interested in hearing other views, but rather in sniffing their own farts.  If you seriously cannot come up with an example of why someone refusing to get a vaccine is loving his neighbor, then you and your unjustifiably high opinion of your own opinions are the problem.

It is also my belief that it is much, much better to hear arguments directly from "the horse's mouth," than to make up my own about others. A friend, we just recently meant, came over for Thanksgiving dinner, (with a long-time friend). He was taught by his mother, growing up in Texas, that every other denomination except Baptists were cults. He came to question her argument when he attended Catholic masses in the military (because their service times were more convenient for him). Lutherans were also seen as a cult. I've also read articles by Lutherans that are anti-Catholic, which, when talking to Catholics, are untrue or at best, a mischaracterization of their beliefs. Similarly, a Catholic friend asked me about some Lutheran things that a priest had taught him about Lutheranism; and they were mischaracterizations.

Have you considered that you are the one accusing others of cultism here?  The problem is not that you are asking for arguments "from the horse's mouth," but rather that you render judgments without charity.

I'll give you one example, leaving some details out since this is a friend of mine and none of your business, to hopefully illustrate my point.  I know a man who works for a large corporation that is impacted by the vaccine mandates President Biden put into place earlier this year.  He has been told that he must be vaccinated or he will lose his job by year's end.  So this particular company, a government contractor, has gone beyond the mandate to essentially say "get vaccinated or else."  He was given the same justification the mandate does -- it's for "workplace safety."

He has a chronic disease that makes him concerned about the effects of the vaccine.  He's already had COVID, and therefore is not worried about immunity because he already has it.  But the real kicker is this -- he works from home.  That's right -- in the name of workplace safety, they are forcing a guy with chronic diseases who is at least as immune from reinfection as any vaccinated person to get a chemical injected in his body, to protect a workplace he never goes to.

You want to put the burden on him to demonstrate why his refusal to be vaccinated demonstrates love of God and neighbor.  But my question is to you -- why should he have to decide between feeding his family and getting a vaccine he doesn't need and which might harm him to placate your fears?  More to the point, why aren't you viewing HIM as your neighbor instead of viewing yourself as his? 

Worry about your duty to your neighbor, and leave my friend alone.  That's my response.

I also had covid before there were vaccines available. And thought long and hard before getting vaccinated. And here's the thing: the vaccines offer superior protection than any kind of "natural immunity." Covid re-infections are real. Many people with long covid have experienced symptom relief after getting vaccinated. Based on the evidence we have, not exempting people previously diagnosed with covid from vaccine mandates is perfectly logical. They are not equivalent levels of protection. And presumably your friend leaves the house at some point, even if it is not going to the office, so a vaccine mandate is in the government and his company's best interest.

As the Supreme Court found in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, compulsory vaccine mandates are constitutional. That does not mean they are good policy, and there is a question over who has the power to enact them (states vs the federal government). But there is no automatic right to refuse a vaccine.

[peter_speckhard]

Why did you think long and hard about it?

[David Garner]

I also had covid before there were vaccines available. And thought long and hard before getting vaccinated. And here's the thing: the vaccines offer superior protection than any kind of "natural immunity." Covid re-infections are real. Many people with long covid have experienced symptom relief after getting vaccinated. Based on the evidence we have, not exempting people previously diagnosed with covid from vaccine mandates is perfectly logical. They are not equivalent levels of protection. And presumably your friend leaves the house at some point, even if it is not going to the office, so a vaccine mandate is in the government and his company's best interest.

Who are you to make that decision on his behalf?  Is it because you "thought long and hard about it?"  Do you think he didn't?  Do you think if perhaps he read your conclusory assertions here he would say "oh, gosh -- I hadn't considered that Dana Lockhart disagrees with me, perhaps I should submit to the vaccine after all!" 

I mean, you didn't even mention his health issues, but being entirely fair, it's not really any of your business what they are and so I haven't told you, which leaves you a little bit in the dark.  My point is, that doesn't seem to have stopped you from judging him and his choice.

As the Supreme Court found in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, compulsory vaccine mandates are constitutional. That does not mean they are good policy, and there is a question over who has the power to enact them (states vs the federal government). But there is no automatic right to refuse a vaccine.

The Court in Jacobson found that it was the right of a STATE to enact a vaccine mandate because the LEGISLATURE directly enacted the law within the state's police powers.  It did not say an unelected federal bureaucracy has the right to impose a mandate not contemplated by the enabling legislation, much less that private employers may go beyond it to compel employees to have chemicals injected into their bodies against their will.  Since nobody has said there is an "automatic right to refuse a vaccine," that seems to be a red herring to me.  The state legislature of Georgia has not imposed a vaccine mandate and this man's employer is basically forcing him to get one or be fired from his job, in the name of workplace safety for a workplace he does not attend.  You say above he will at some point go outside his house.  Well, obviously. What that has to do with workplace safety is beyond me, but you and Pastor Stoffregen seem eager to tell other people what to do under pain of starvation and financial ruin, so I suppose such details don't matter.

I ask again -- where did Christ teach you to starve your neighbor to make yourself feel safer?  Put the shoe on the other foot and justify your insistence that this man get injected against his will.  Until you do that, your entire worldview is unchristian and unbefitting a Christian.  I am vaccinated and I wish others to be vaccinated, but I'm not going to insist my friend get vaccinated over my irrational fears.  I trust that my vaccine works.

[peter_speckhard]

The latest science is always changing. That’s an argument for constantly changing what you do. But it is also a de facto argument against changing what you do until something shows some staying power. When someone changes their mind all the time, that doesn’t mean they’re always wrong or that you never listen to them. It just means you wait a bit to see if they’re going to stick with it this time. If two years from now it turns out there are long term negative side effects of one or more of the vaccines, people will no doubt point out that they didn’t know that at the time they were recommending them, and in fact had no way of knowing that. True. But they also didn’t know there weren’t adverse effects, and had every reason to think it was a possibility. If that happens, I won’t regret my decision to get vaccinated. I did what I thought best at the time. And people who didn’t get vaccinated will also not regret their decision. They were doing what they thought best at the time. Neither of us knew for certain which decision time would vindicate, and we both made our own decision. It is when you mandate or forbid an action that you invite trouble, because if time doesn’t vindicate you, you’ve become a tyrant. Tyrants tend to mean well.

[Dana Lockhart]

I also had covid before there were vaccines available. And thought long and hard before getting vaccinated. And here's the thing: the vaccines offer superior protection than any kind of "natural immunity." Covid re-infections are real. Many people with long covid have experienced symptom relief after getting vaccinated. Based on the evidence we have, not exempting people previously diagnosed with covid from vaccine mandates is perfectly logical. They are not equivalent levels of protection. And presumably your friend leaves the house at some point, even if it is not going to the office, so a vaccine mandate is in the government and his company's best interest.

Who are you to make that decision on his behalf?  Is it because you "thought long and hard about it?"  Do you think he didn't?  Do you think if perhaps he read your conclusory assertions here he would say "oh, gosh -- I hadn't considered that Dana Lockhart disagrees with me, perhaps I should submit to the vaccine after all!" 

I mean, you didn't even mention his health issues, but being entirely fair, it's not really any of your business what they are and so I haven't told you, which leaves you a little bit in the dark.  My point is, that doesn't seem to have stopped you from judging him and his choice.

As the Supreme Court found in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, compulsory vaccine mandates are constitutional. That does not mean they are good policy, and there is a question over who has the power to enact them (states vs the federal government). But there is no automatic right to refuse a vaccine.

The Court in Jacobson found that it was the right of a STATE to enact a vaccine mandate because the LEGISLATURE directly enacted the law within the state's police powers.  It did not say an unelected federal bureaucracy has the right to impose a mandate not contemplated by the enabling legislation, much less that private employers may go beyond it to compel employees to have chemicals injected into their bodies against their will.  Since nobody has said there is an "automatic right to refuse a vaccine," that seems to be a red herring to me.  The state legislature of Georgia has not imposed a vaccine mandate and this man's employer is basically forcing him to get one or be fired from his job, in the name of workplace safety for a workplace he does not attend.  You say above he will at some point go outside his house.  Well, obviously. What that has to do with workplace safety is beyond me, but you and Pastor Stoffregen seem eager to tell other people what to do under pain of starvation and financial ruin, so I suppose such details don't matter.

I ask again -- where did Christ teach you to starve your neighbor to make yourself feel safer?  Put the shoe on the other foot and justify your insistence that this man get injected against his will.  Until you do that, your entire worldview is unchristian and unbefitting a Christian.  I am vaccinated and I wish others to be vaccinated, but I'm not going to insist my friend get vaccinated over my irrational fears.  I trust that my vaccine works.

I have outlined my views of vaccination as a civic duty, akin to paying taxes, already in this thread. Framing it as a personal choice is a rhetorical ploy… I understand why it serves your views, I just don't think it represents the reality of the situation.

Has your friend been advised by his medical professional that getting vaccinated would imperil his health? If so, then there should be an exemption available to him.  But for the vast majority of people, vaccination should be a considered a duty of citizenship. Akin to taxes and jury duty and registering for the selective service and all other things we have to do as citizens, even (especially?) when we would prefer not to. As to the mandates: they will be litigated in the courts, but it is obvious as a matter of policy that the intention is to get as many people vaccinated as possible. Whether the courts will uphold the Biden's administration's preferred means is an open question. I was merely pointing out that, as a matter of law and policy, vaccines have long been considered compulsory rather than optional.

And our employers have the right to establish their own polices. There is no right to a job. I don't desire anyone to lose their job or face financial ruin… it just perplexes me that vaccines have long been a condition of employment for millions of people, that this has been uncontroversial, and it just happens to be THIS vaccine that people are digging their heels in about. Ok. Dig your heels in. But you are not being any more persecuted if your employer fires you for doing so than if you are dismissed for not following through with any other job requirement.

Look: it's clear it doesn't matter who says that "natural immunity" is not equivalent to vaccination, as you have already rejected it out of hand. Things were less clear 8 months ago when I signed up to get jabbed… science does take time… but the picture is much clearer now, which is why previous infection is not considered by any health authority as equivalent to vaccination. So it's not "Dana Lockhart disagrees with me," but rather "just about every public health authority in the nation looked at this question and came to a different conclusion." But hey, what do they know?

Screaming, "but I don't wanna do it" is petulant. It's childish. It's anti-social. Pay your taxes, show up for jury duty, and get your shots. It's not hard.

[Dana Lockhart]

The latest science is always changing. That’s an argument for constantly changing what you do. But it is also a de facto argument against changing what you do until something shows some staying power. When someone changes their mind all the time, that doesn’t mean they’re always wrong or that you never listen to them. It just means you wait a bit to see if they’re going to stick with it this time. If two years from now it turns out there are long term negative side effects of one or more of the vaccines, people will no doubt point out that they didn’t know that at the time they were recommending them, and in fact had no way of knowing that. True. But they also didn’t know there weren’t adverse effects, and had every reason to think it was a possibility. If that happens, I won’t regret my decision to get vaccinated. I did what I thought best at the time. And people who didn’t get vaccinated will also not regret their decision. They were doing what they thought best at the time. Neither of us knew for certain which decision time would vindicate, and we both made our own decision. It is when you mandate or forbid an action that you invite trouble, because if time doesn’t vindicate you, you’ve become a tyrant. Tyrants tend to mean well.

I think it is pretty well documented that plenty of people do regret not getting vaccinated… when they end up being ventilated and dying in the ICU. 1000+ deaths a day, gentlemen . The overwhelming majority unvaccinated. Including a relative of mine. Sadly.

[peter_speckhard]

The latest science is always changing. That’s an argument for constantly changing what you do. But it is also a de facto argument against changing what you do until something shows some staying power. When someone changes their mind all the time, that doesn’t mean they’re always wrong or that you never listen to them. It just means you wait a bit to see if they’re going to stick with it this time. If two years from now it turns out there are long term negative side effects of one or more of the vaccines, people will no doubt point out that they didn’t know that at the time they were recommending them, and in fact had no way of knowing that. True. But they also didn’t know there weren’t adverse effects, and had every reason to think it was a possibility. If that happens, I won’t regret my decision to get vaccinated. I did what I thought best at the time. And people who didn’t get vaccinated will also not regret their decision. They were doing what they thought best at the time. Neither of us knew for certain which decision time would vindicate, and we both made our own decision. It is when you mandate or forbid an action that you invite trouble, because if time doesn’t vindicate you, you’ve become a tyrant. Tyrants tend to mean well.

I think it is pretty well documented that plenty of people do regret not getting vaccinated… when they end up being ventilated and dying in the ICU. 1000+ deaths a day, gentlemen . The overwhelming majority unvaccinated. Including a relative of mine. Sadly.

Could be. But at least it is their own decision they’re regretting. If the state had forbidden them when they wanted to get vaccinated, their regrets would be of an entirely different nature. And if in a few years it turns out there were serious adverse long term affects, and healthy people with little to fear from the virus have suffered irreversible consequences from the vaccine, maybe I’ll regret getting vaccinated. At least it will have been my decision I’m regretting. I knew there could be unforeseeable effects. It was a risk I was willing to take. I just see no need to insist that everyone else evaluate risks the same way.

[Dana Lockhart]

Why did you think long and hard about it?

Honestly? Because at the time being a member of the clergy bumped me to the front of the line for vaccines at a time when others were waiting, and I had to weigh the value of my supposed "natural immunity" and the possibility of taking a spot from someone who hadn't had covid. The public health advice, however, was unequivocal: get the vaccine as soon as you are eligible.

One question for the other pastors on this thread: how often do you talk with, hear from, meet with etc. your local public health department? I have found them tremendously helpful and receptive since day one. If it all comes down to trust, well, I frankly have a high degree of trust for my local department and take what they say seriously. And stay in communication.

[Dave Benke]

There are serious adverse long term effects, without any question, for the many who have contracted what is called Long COVID.  They're not afraid of what might happen long term.  It has happened to them.  And they have been the most effective folks in communicating to our neighborhood and parish that it's important to get the vaccine.

My nephew is a physician who contracted the virus in the very first wave because there was no PPE.  He told us what was happening in his hospital, that there were no masks available, and that he would be getting the virus.  He did, in a severe way.  In addition to his hospitalist duties, he is also doing community service in Westchester County NY educating adults and children concerning Corona Virus as an attending physician at a major hospital with the added differential of his personal experience.  Along with congregation members who are in the public health department, and along with the visits to our church and day care center by people in the public health department, we have family in the public health division.  All of these are invaluable in parish and personal practice.

Dave Benke

[John_Hannah]

I also had covid before there were vaccines available. And thought long and hard before getting vaccinated. And here's the thing: the vaccines offer superior protection than any kind of "natural immunity." Covid re-infections are real. Many people with long covid have experienced symptom relief after getting vaccinated. Based on the evidence we have, not exempting people previously diagnosed with covid from vaccine mandates is perfectly logical. They are not equivalent levels of protection. And presumably your friend leaves the house at some point, even if it is not going to the office, so a vaccine mandate is in the government and his company's best interest.

Who are you to make that decision on his behalf?  Is it because you "thought long and hard about it?"  Do you think he didn't?  Do you think if perhaps he read your conclusory assertions here he would say "oh, gosh -- I hadn't considered that Dana Lockhart disagrees with me, perhaps I should submit to the vaccine after all!" 

I mean, you didn't even mention his health issues, but being entirely fair, it's not really any of your business what they are and so I haven't told you, which leaves you a little bit in the dark.  My point is, that doesn't seem to have stopped you from judging him and his choice.

As the Supreme Court found in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, compulsory vaccine mandates are constitutional. That does not mean they are good policy, and there is a question over who has the power to enact them (states vs the federal government). But there is no automatic right to refuse a vaccine.

The Court in Jacobson found that it was the right of a STATE to enact a vaccine mandate because the LEGISLATURE directly enacted the law within the state's police powers.  It did not say an unelected federal bureaucracy has the right to impose a mandate not contemplated by the enabling legislation, much less that private employers may go beyond it to compel employees to have chemicals injected into their bodies against their will.  Since nobody has said there is an "automatic right to refuse a vaccine," that seems to be a red herring to me.  The state legislature of Georgia has not imposed a vaccine mandate and this man's employer is basically forcing him to get one or be fired from his job, in the name of workplace safety for a workplace he does not attend.  You say above he will at some point go outside his house.  Well, obviously. What that has to do with workplace safety is beyond me, but you and Pastor Stoffregen seem eager to tell other people what to do under pain of starvation and financial ruin, so I suppose such details don't matter.

I ask again -- where did Christ teach you to starve your neighbor to make yourself feel safer?  Put the shoe on the other foot and justify your insistence that this man get injected against his will.  Until you do that, your entire worldview is unchristian and unbefitting a Christian.  I am vaccinated and I wish others to be vaccinated, but I'm not going to insist my friend get vaccinated over my irrational fears.  I trust that my vaccine works.

I have outlined my views of vaccination as a civic duty, akin to paying taxes, already in this thread. Framing it as a personal choice is a rhetorical ploy… I understand why it serves your views, I just don't think it represents the reality of the situation.

Has your friend been advised by his medical professional that getting vaccinated would imperil his health? If so, then there should be an exemption available to him.  But for the vast majority of people, vaccination should be a considered a duty of citizenship. Akin to taxes and jury duty and registering for the selective service and all other things we have to do as citizens, even (especially?) when we would prefer not to. As to the mandates: they will be litigated in the courts, but it is obvious as a matter of policy that the intention is to get as many people vaccinated as possible. Whether the courts will uphold the Biden's administration's preferred means is an open question. I was merely pointing out that, as a matter of law and policy, vaccines have long been considered compulsory rather than optional.

And our employers have the right to establish their own polices. There is no right to a job. I don't desire anyone to lose their job or face financial ruin… it just perplexes me that vaccines have long been a condition of employment for millions of people, that this has been uncontroversial, and it just happens to be THIS vaccine that people are digging their heels in about. Ok. Dig your heels in. But you are not being any more persecuted if your employer fires you for doing so than if you are dismissed for not following through with any other job requirement.

Look: it's clear it doesn't matter who says that "natural immunity" is not equivalent to vaccination, as you have already rejected it out of hand. Things were less clear 8 months ago when I signed up to get jabbed… science does take time… but the picture is much clearer now, which is why previous infection is not considered by any health authority as equivalent to vaccination. So it's not "Dana Lockhart disagrees with me," but rather "just about every public health authority in the nation looked at this question and came to a different conclusion." But hey, what do they know?

Screaming, "but I don't wanna do it" is petulant. It's childish. It's anti-social. Pay your taxes, show up for jury duty, and get your shots. It's not hard.

Anti-vaxing serves to discredit Biden and the Democrats. For many that seems to be what it's all about. Vote against Biden three years early.

You are right. Cooperate now for the public's health and vote your choices with your ballot when the time comes.

Peace, JOHN

[David Garner]

I also had covid before there were vaccines available. And thought long and hard before getting vaccinated. And here's the thing: the vaccines offer superior protection than any kind of "natural immunity." Covid re-infections are real. Many people with long covid have experienced symptom relief after getting vaccinated. Based on the evidence we have, not exempting people previously diagnosed with covid from vaccine mandates is perfectly logical. They are not equivalent levels of protection. And presumably your friend leaves the house at some point, even if it is not going to the office, so a vaccine mandate is in the government and his company's best interest.

Who are you to make that decision on his behalf?  Is it because you "thought long and hard about it?"  Do you think he didn't?  Do you think if perhaps he read your conclusory assertions here he would say "oh, gosh -- I hadn't considered that Dana Lockhart disagrees with me, perhaps I should submit to the vaccine after all!" 

I mean, you didn't even mention his health issues, but being entirely fair, it's not really any of your business what they are and so I haven't told you, which leaves you a little bit in the dark.  My point is, that doesn't seem to have stopped you from judging him and his choice.

As the Supreme Court found in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, compulsory vaccine mandates are constitutional. That does not mean they are good policy, and there is a question over who has the power to enact them (states vs the federal government). But there is no automatic right to refuse a vaccine.

The Court in Jacobson found that it was the right of a STATE to enact a vaccine mandate because the LEGISLATURE directly enacted the law within the state's police powers.  It did not say an unelected federal bureaucracy has the right to impose a mandate not contemplated by the enabling legislation, much less that private employers may go beyond it to compel employees to have chemicals injected into their bodies against their will.  Since nobody has said there is an "automatic right to refuse a vaccine," that seems to be a red herring to me.  The state legislature of Georgia has not imposed a vaccine mandate and this man's employer is basically forcing him to get one or be fired from his job, in the name of workplace safety for a workplace he does not attend.  You say above he will at some point go outside his house.  Well, obviously. What that has to do with workplace safety is beyond me, but you and Pastor Stoffregen seem eager to tell other people what to do under pain of starvation and financial ruin, so I suppose such details don't matter.

I ask again -- where did Christ teach you to starve your neighbor to make yourself feel safer?  Put the shoe on the other foot and justify your insistence that this man get injected against his will.  Until you do that, your entire worldview is unchristian and unbefitting a Christian.  I am vaccinated and I wish others to be vaccinated, but I'm not going to insist my friend get vaccinated over my irrational fears.  I trust that my vaccine works.

I have outlined my views of vaccination as a civic duty, akin to paying taxes, already in this thread. Framing it as a personal choice is a rhetorical ploy… I understand why it serves your views, I just don't think it represents the reality of the situation.

Has your friend been advised by his medical professional that getting vaccinated would imperil his health? If so, then there should be an exemption available to him.  But for the vast majority of people, vaccination should be a considered a duty of citizenship. Akin to taxes and jury duty and registering for the selective service and all other things we have to do as citizens, even (especially?) when we would prefer not to. As to the mandates: they will be litigated in the courts, but it is obvious as a matter of policy that the intention is to get as many people vaccinated as possible. Whether the courts will uphold the Biden's administration's preferred means is an open question. I was merely pointing out that, as a matter of law and policy, vaccines have long been considered compulsory rather than optional.

And our employers have the right to establish their own polices. There is no right to a job. I don't desire anyone to lose their job or face financial ruin… it just perplexes me that vaccines have long been a condition of employment for millions of people, that this has been uncontroversial, and it just happens to be THIS vaccine that people are digging their heels in about. Ok. Dig your heels in. But you are not being any more persecuted if your employer fires you for doing so than if you are dismissed for not following through with any other job requirement.

Look: it's clear it doesn't matter who says that "natural immunity" is not equivalent to vaccination, as you have already rejected it out of hand. Things were less clear 8 months ago when I signed up to get jabbed… science does take time… but the picture is much clearer now, which is why previous infection is not considered by any health authority as equivalent to vaccination. So it's not "Dana Lockhart disagrees with me," but rather "just about every public health authority in the nation looked at this question and came to a different conclusion." But hey, what do they know?

Screaming, "but I don't wanna do it" is petulant. It's childish. It's anti-social. Pay your taxes, show up for jury duty, and get your shots. It's not hard.

The beautiful thing about living in a free country is literally no one has to care what your view of vaccine mandates is, or what you think is childish or anti-social.  No one has to agree with your view of who is or is not a public health expert.  No one has to care that you falsely accuse your neighbor of using a "rhetorical ploy" by "framing" vaccination as a personal choice, as if people are being dishonest.

No one has to care.  And I don't.  Your judgments are noted.  Ugly as they are, you are entitled to them.  My judgments are different.  I think you and Pastor Stoffregen and those like you are the unchristian ones because you seek to compel your neighbor to act to dispel your own fears.  You don't have to care about that either, because we live in a free country where I am free to get vaccinated and encourage my entire family to do so, and encourage my friends to do so, while still respecting the rights -- and the privacy, so I will decline your prying questions about his medical issues -- of this particular friend and those similarly situated.  And you all are free to call your neighbor names and accuse me and him and those like me and him of dishonesty.

Despite what Pastor Hannah seems to think......

Anti-vaxing serves to discredit Biden and the Democrats. For many that seems to be what it's all about. Vote against Biden three years early.

You are right. Cooperate now for the public's health and vote your choices with your ballot when the time comes.

.....accusing your neighbor of making this about politics and attempting to force their compliance is uncharitable and slanderous.  None of you give your neighbor the slightest benefit of any doubt.  You are all therefore liars and ought to repent.  But beyond that you are fools who think insulting people will get them to agree with you.  That is, you are not only uncharitable and slanderous and therefore wrong, but in fact you are also ineffective and chase people from your own cause.  That is true whether your cause is to help more people decide to get vaccinated or to simply control them.  The result is the same -- you make people not like you very much because you boss them around and turn up your elitist noses to avoid the stench of those who are beneath you.  You should all repent.

You won't, because you still think you are the ones to whom Christian duty is owed and my friend is the one being a bad Christian.  But you should. It's easy to think of one's self as the good samaritan while ignoring that you are the ones leaving Jesus bleeding in the ditch.