Don't misunderstand me: I have nowhere stated that all churches in the U.S. must continue to offer in-person services without any break or they are unfaithful. Nor have I ever suggested that appropriate precautions such as 6-foot distancing between family units and distribution of hand sanitizer should not be taken during such meetings. In certain situations delaying meeting for a short period of time may be necessary, particularly in areas heavily hit by the virus or in instances where the congregation consists predominantly of the elderly. What I am saying is that this can be done without supporting a State determination that public church services are nonessential and without stretching the situation out over several months. The State has no right under the First Amendment to assert that public church services are "nonessential services." Nor can churches concede this assessment by closing down their doors for many months.
Good point!
ReplyDeleteLikewise I've generally argued that mitigation measures should be voluntarily performed by individuals and communities in conjunction with local health care (not the CDC), not mandated top-down from the state.
Each community would (or should) know what's best for their communities. If, for example, there's no evidence of COVID-19 in their community, then why can't it be business as usual? That's not to suggest they can't take precautions and preemptive safeguards if they believe that's prudent. Same goes for local churches. They can decide what's best for their communities without direction from the state.
If the CDC had allowed local communities to start testing people as soon as they suspected the coronavirus had landed on our shores, rather than making everyone go through them, then local communities could have started manufacturing, distributing, and testing people right away. In fact, many local communities were eager to do so near the beginning (e.g. I seem to recall several Bay Area hospitals and academic institutions had lined up together with private companies to start testing), but the CDC wouldn't allow independent testing at the time.
If such local communities had gotten their way at the time, then they arguably could have tested, traced, and treated the affected, and kept the outbreak from spreading far afield like it now has.
In short, ideally, if people were moral and wise, and informed, then the government need do very little. People could simply decide for themselves what's best, self-quarantine, social distance on their own, and so on. Their actions might not be significantly different than what's mandated now, per se, but I think it makes all the difference whether those actions are coerced top-down vs. voluntarily engaged bottom-up.
At least that's how I see things.
I wish I could share your enthusiasm, Hawk.
ReplyDeleteJohn Adams, as I am sure you're aware, said that our Constitution was made "only for a moral and religious people." And that "it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Don't get me wrong. There still are some truly great people in this country, but they are decidedly in the minority. Where, pray tell, are all these wise and informed citizens you speak of? With the intense politicization of the news media, the medical and scientific communities, along with the rest of academia, it's incredibly difficult to even become "informed" these days. There's no one left to trust.
Top down or bottom up. I doubt it's going to make much difference. The general populace is not trustworthy. Neither is the local government nor the state government nor the federal government.
From the beginning of this pandemic, it has been abundantly clear that most areas are far more infected than documented cases and deaths imply. For sure, we should have been testing like crazy. But since we haven't, how can you then say we should be relying on local "prudence"? Prudence based on what?
Thanks, Eric. The way I look at it is like this:
Delete1. These are fair points, and, in fact, you could well be right! I don't necessarily disagree with you.
2. Let's suppose you're right. Also, as you astutely noted I did have the Adams quote in mind and was indirectly alluding to it when I wrote the above! :) I think in broad strokes Adams could well be right too. If you're right there aren't enough moral people anymore, and "no one left to trust" as you put it, then our way of life is basically done and over. No more United States of America as laid out in our constitutional republic. In that respect, what's the use in trying to live by our governing principles anymore? Indeed, as you've said here and in a previous post, the government could opt for draconian laws. It doesn't matter if it's a conservative government or a progressive government. In the end, it's the same. It's either a liberal or a conservative oligarchy or at least something significantly less than what our republic was meant to be. The American experiment is over. Again, in this respect, why not opt for draconian measures? Why not do what other nations in the past and present (e.g. China) have done to their populations in order to stem the tide of the virus? Anything to preserve our nation even if we can't preserve our way of life.
3. Speaking for myself, I think I have more hope and optimism. I grant I could be utterly naive about this. Maybe my hope is a fantasy. Based on nothing more substantial than the stuff of shattered dreams and broken hearts. Nevertheless I think I have some grounds, even if less than sufficient grounds, for my hope:
a. For one thing, I believe in common grace.
b. For another, I think there's a roughly 50/50 divide in our nation today over these matters, and I think many Americans are willing to fight for our way of life, a way of life which better reflects the good and the true than (say) what progressives envision. So I don't think "we the people" are necessarily as far gone as you may think.
c. Related to the previous, we're not passive players who are fated to die, but in fact we're active players on the stage. We can "make a difference" (to use a tired cliche) in our communities. We can engage in public debate to sway minds. There are many means to make our voices heard available to the average person today that weren't necessarily so in the past (e.g. social media, a more interconnected world, underground journalism). Obviously these things cut both ways, but at least it's not like we have zero voice, I don't think. We just have to fight more so our voices aren't drowned. Moreover we can friendship-evangelize our neighbors. In fact the midst of a pandemic seems to be a very opportune time to do so. More people seem willing to listen than before.
d. I believe in the efficacy of prayer. God could have mercy on us.
e. I think there could be more prudent people if so many people did not panic. I think panic often begets more panic. We've worked ourselves into a frenzy and state of fear over this virus that we're willing to do anything to stop it. People who panic have lost their minds and are going crazy, but if they could only calm down for a moment, then they might be able to see reason.
f. Ragnarok. Obviously I don't subscribe to Norse mythology, but I use the term to convey a general idea. That is, the Norse believed all would be consumed in a last great battle, even those on the side of the good. All would die. Nevertheless they fought. Yet why bother if all are preordained to die anyway? In this respect, I think even if what you said is true, then why not take the attitude of Patrick Henry: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Hawk--
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response. I'm not as pessimistic as I sound concerning our nation's future. I have young kids, and can't let go of my last shreds of hope for their sakes.
Plus, I'm a bit on edge. I'm old enough and infirm enough to be in a couple of high-risk categories. I'm not in fear or in a panic, but I'm not stupid either. I have a ninety percent chance of coming through unscathed even if I catch the virus. Not that bad, I suppose. But I wouldn't voluntarily enter an amusement park where I only had a ninety percent chance of exiting alive. Pragmatically, my best chances are to hide myself away until such time as they have developed a viable vaccine.
1. You seem to assume that draconian measures must needs be permanent. Why are you so pessimistic? When a family adopts austerity measures in order to get themselves out of debt, each individual gives up some freedom for the good of the group. That doesn't mean the family is against personal freedoms. Nor does it mean that the restrictions will remain in place once the debt is paid. Sometimes--for the short term, anyway--the overall good of the group may trump individual rights.
2. I do believe we're fairly far gone. It's certainly not 50/50. And even if it were, many if not most on the good side of the ledger are going to be dead in 20 years or so. Nevertheless, best I can, I will be sending my own progeny out as arrows to help right a few wrongs. God can turn things around...and has at times in the past. My family and I will be praying to that end.
3. People who are not sufficiently prudent have also lost their minds. We need to get the economy back on track, but we need a balanced approach. One that doesn't merely throw "expendables" under the bus for the sake of prosperity.
4. There is nothing in Scripture that lifts up liberty as an unassailable priority. Is liberty so dear that you would never sacrifice it for the sake of others? Admittedly, in many times and places, liberty is a great good that can be greatly used in the service of mankind. On the other hand, oppression and misery often fuel revival...as they clearly have in China.
"Thanks for the response. I'm not as pessimistic as I sound concerning our nation's future. I have young kids, and can't let go of my last shreds of hope for their sakes."
DeleteThanks, Eric. I think I'm in a similar boat as well in terms of family.
"Plus, I'm a bit on edge. I'm old enough and infirm enough to be in a couple of high-risk categories. I'm not in fear or in a panic, but I'm not stupid either. I have a ninety percent chance of coming through unscathed even if I catch the virus. Not that bad, I suppose. But I wouldn't voluntarily enter an amusement park where I only had a ninety percent chance of exiting alive. Pragmatically, my best chances are to hide myself away until such time as they have developed a viable vaccine."
That's completely fair.
"1. You seem to assume that draconian measures must needs be permanent. Why are you so pessimistic? When a family adopts austerity measures in order to get themselves out of debt, each individual gives up some freedom for the good of the group. That doesn't mean the family is against personal freedoms. Nor does it mean that the restrictions will remain in place once the debt is paid. Sometimes--for the short term, anyway--the overall good of the group may trump individual rights."
Regarding temporary draconian measures, I think the risk is what Orwell pointed out in 1984: "We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it."
Of course, families aren't equivalent to our society at large. A family can be "authoritarian" in the sense that parents can tell their children what to do, end of discussion. However our nation is a consensual and constitutional republic.
"2. I do believe we're fairly far gone. It's certainly not 50/50. And even if it were, many if not most on the good side of the ledger are going to be dead in 20 years or so."
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. However, as I said, if it's true that you're right (and as I also said you could indeed be right; I didn't disagree with you about this), then the tyranny of the masses may be upon us and rule by passion rather than reason in its wake. If that's the case, then the question is how to stop this and win back our republic. Ironically, some may even justify a strongman to wrest back the scepter of reason from passion.
"Nevertheless, best I can, I will be sending my own progeny out as arrows to help right a few wrongs. God can turn things around...and has at times in the past. My family and I will be praying to that end."
Sounds good, man. Same here.
"3. People who are not sufficiently prudent have also lost their minds. We need to get the economy back on track, but we need a balanced approach. One that doesn't merely throw "expendables" under the bus for the sake of prosperity."
DeleteAs I've said in the past, I'm trying to sail in between the Scylla and Charybdis of those who think this is no worse than a bad flu season and those who think we must be willing to do whatever it takes to stop the spread. Sure, that still leaves a lot of room in the middle; I think you and I are probably somewhere in the middle. So I guess what we're trying to hash out with one another now is where in the middle we each are.
To be fair, even the experts in medicine and public health sometimes change their views from week to week inasmuch as this is a novel virus and the situation is so dynamic. If it's hard for the experts to be have generally consistent views, then it may be even more difficult for the general public to do the same.
"4. There is nothing in Scripture that lifts up liberty as an unassailable priority. Is liberty so dear that you would never sacrifice it for the sake of others? Admittedly, in many times and places, liberty is a great good that can be greatly used in the service of mankind. On the other hand, oppression and misery often fuel revival...as they clearly have in China."
Well, I'm certainly not lifting up liberty as an "unassaiblable priority". I only quoted Patrick Henry in response to a worst-case scenario or hypothetical that I don't think is even true. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried to deal with hypotheticals in the first place, but focused on what's realistic.
Of course I believe Scripture should be primary and central in influencing all we think, say, and do. At the same time, we have to take into consideration the nation in which we are citizens. Indeed, a nation in which it's a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We can attempt to influence and change the government with biblical ideals, but short of a call for revolution we still have to work within the confines or framework of Constitutional principles.
As I said almost a month ago: "pace Franklin, it might come down to a choice between security and liberty, even though that's not a choice any full-blooded American would ever wish to make."
Thanks, Hawk.
ReplyDeleteI'm not willing to do "whatever it takes" to stop the spread. If we do that, we may pay with worldwide economic depression...and even more death and misery. But I do think we should hit it with a hammer at our earliest convenience and seriously blunt its upward trajectory. When the whole is threatened, we shouldn't be acting like a bunch of unassociated individuals. If nuclear missiles were headed our way...or an asteroid was on collision course...we'd come together on whatever draconian measures might help. Our difficulty in the present situation is that nobody much is all that scared. More than 99% of us are going to survive. Spring Break, anyone? Whoo-hoo!!
I think the experts are, by and large, agreed on the essentials: constant vigilance and preparation; early detection, diagnosis, and treatment; and the isolation of those who test positive. The problem is we didn't do any of those things. Not really.
We better fix that going forward, and in some way or another, China and the WHO should pay for what they've done. (World peace is not so dear that we should tolerate the reckless actions of even powerful rogue nations.)
According to Augustine, we are the citizens of two cities. And it's hard to know how our conflicting loyalties should interact. Part of me wants to fight tooth and nail for continued religious liberties, and part of me would be excited for the church to go underground to cure its Laodicaean malaise.
Seven score and seventeen years ago, we may well have had a government "of, by, and for the people," but those days are long gone. Both parties are oligarchies serving an elite constituency. I actually think it's advisable to keep up the charade of democracy even though we're really a manipulatocracy controlled by those who gerrymander districts, buy voters, import voters, and train up voters (in the way that they should vote).
I hope that we can restore even a modicum of constitutionality. But I won't be holding my breath.
Thanks, Eric. I do agree with most of that.
DeleteHawk--
ReplyDeleteI did want to add that Orwell, in context, is speaking of seeking power for the sake of power. He's talking about tyrants procuring power, not statesmen wielding power (some of whom even vote for term limits).
No one believes that our public schools will not reopen or that our businesses will not restart. You yourself don't actually believe that Texas' ban on all non-essential surgery, INCLUDING abortion, will remain in force once the crisis is behind us, do you?
Thanks, Eric. Oh yeah, that's why I said it's a "risk" regarding what Orwell said, not that it necessarily must lead to it.
Delete