The COVID-19 Vaccination as the New Acceptable Jim Crow

There are 12 Comments

dgszweda's picture

This is so far off the mark.  Jim Crow laws were designed to differentiate people based off of skin color.  Something that was not controllable by the individual.  This division around the vaccine is around decisions that people individually make.  Just because a group believes in abortion, doesn't invalidate all of the other decisions that this individual makes.  Also, G3 ministries is pitting this as a Democratic vs. Republican scenario, or a liberal vs. a conservative.  While a larger percentage of Republicans are against vaccines, it is not a universal description of a liberal or a conservative.

G3 is also way off the mark on the aborted fetal cell lines.  While a vaccine like Moderna's may have used the fetal cell lines to test the initial safety, it was not dependent upon those lines, nor did it use those lines to determine the safety within individuals.  If you are going to hold up Moderna's use of the cell line, you would need to remove a whole host of over the counter medications that everyone takes on a daily basis.  G3 is grasping at straws.  Lastly, there is no Scripture used here by G3.  If Scripture is our bedrock on which we are to base our decisions upon, why can the anti-vaccine crowd develop any type of cohesive Scriptural argument for their stance.  In the vast majority of arguments, there is absolutely no Scripture used once.

Where the crux comes down to, is this quote right here from G3

Quote:
While the church must fight for freedom and oppose any ideology that demands we bow to the false god of government

Those Christians who are more amicable to government health mandates, take a higher view on the Government as an ordained institution created by God and one that is created to establish safety, as well as one in which portions of Scripture outline how we should respect government.  Those Christians who are more opposed to government health mandates, more often than not, do not have a Scriptural basis for their resistance and use history or more secular approaches to the argument.  I have yet to see a single cohesive Scriptural construct on why we should resist government health mandates.  Don't get me wrong, we need to resist government when it impedes on our ability to speak the gospel, but for most intents and purposes we are not there yet.  The arguments used by G3 are pretty typical of other Christian approaches.  Basically, what I see in this article is:

  • The health mandates are equated to Jim Crow.  Since Jim Crow was evil, health mandates have similiar issues.  The villify people and seperate people.
  • Since the "loudest voices" are also supportive of abortion, is a sleight of hand political move.
  • Health mandates are a type of social justice, and social justice is a false religion
  • the vaccines involve the immoral cooperation in abortion
  • We should not bow to the false god of government

A really sad set of arguments from a group that supposedly prides itself in helping churches develop a theology from the Word of God.

Larry's picture

Moderator

Those Christians who are more amicable to government health mandates, take a higher view on the Government as an ordained institution created by God and one that is created to establish safety, as well as one in which portions of Scripture outline how we should respect government.  Those Christians who are more opposed to government health mandates, more often than not, do not have a Scriptural basis for their resistance and use history or more secular approaches to the argument.

This is false. One can have a very high view of Rom 13 and the government while believing that the government does not have unlimited power and should in fact be bound by its own governing documents. That is a scriptural basis. You may not agree with it, which is fine. You are allowed to differ with people on how the Scriptures should apply to a given situation. In our system (America) the government is supposed to be bound by its governing documents. And as you might know, at least part of "the government" (and the part that will have the final say) has right now taken the side of those opposed to a vaccine mandate because of those governing documents. So if you continue so support the mandate, at least at present you are actually resisting the God-ordained government which includes the courts.

If you truly haven't seen "single cohesive Scriptural construct on why we should resist government health mandates" you might read read more and more widely. I have read a number of them which are very good, even though I disagree with some of them. Oftentimes, I think people who haven't read "a cohesive" argument about something often mean they haven't read something they agree with. I also wonder if you might reconsider your view on individual conscience and bring it into line with the Scriptures. The fact that you hold a strong and well-considered view of something does not give you the right to insist that everyone else hold the same view. 

The COVID-19 vaccine (C-VAX) is being used to divide people into segregated groups and emphasizing one of those groups as the righteous while villainizing the other as the unrighteous, irresponsible, and ignorant subpar group among us. 

This quote from the article seems an almost exact representation of your arguments here (which I have typically found very helpful and well-done; they have been very clarifying for me on some things I am unfamiliar with). The problem is that you have emphasized one group as righteous and villainized the other group as unrighteous and irresponsible and have called them ignorant. In other words, you are described by this line. And you are okay with it because you are convinced your side is right. But you seem unwilling to grant any liberty to those who might differ in good conscience.

The question is, Why do you want to segregate everyone who doesn't agree with you on the vaccine mandate? Do you believe people should lose their jobs and their livelihoods over this? Do you believe we should effectively have internment camps for those who won't take the vaccine? Or ghettos for them to live in? Or limited to certain jobs? Or denied basic civil rights? How is that not a Jim Crow type of law without race? The implications of this are pretty far and wide.

And that's to say nothing of people who agree with you on the effectiveness and necessity of the vaccine but oppose the mandate. What to do with them? It reminds me of the internet meme with two buttons -- "Is smart because they think the vaccine is good and necessary" and "Is not smart because they oppose the vaccine mandate."

It is interesting that everyone says, "We have already mandated vaccines," but that assumes the prior mandate was acceptable and good. This is tantamount to saying, "We have already done this so we can do it again," without considering that maybe we shouldn't have done it to begin with. It might be true, but it lacks argument and consideration.

Lastly, there is no Scripture used here by G3.

Yet the article says "New Testament presents the gospel of Jesus that’s for both Jew and Gentile" which is straight out of the Scripture all over the NT. He says, "I would urge you to avoid vain disputes and strive for unity within the church," which again, is straight out of the NT. He encourage wise reflection on "the commandment to “love our neighbor,'" which is straight out of the NT. He talks about a violation of the third commandment, which, as you know is found in the Scripture. He talks about a violation of the sixth commandment which, again, is found in the Scripture. 

So when you say there is "no Scripture used," you are incorrect. What you mean apparently is that there are no Scripture references given. 

I would urge some liberty and grace towards those who, in good conscience, see this differently. 

dgszweda's picture

Larry wrote:

I would urge some liberty and grace towards those who, in good conscience, see this differently. 

I am not arguing that we should or shouldn't have a mandate, and I am not arguing that we need to segregate people out.  Just my concerns with this article.

If you have seen some with a good Scriptural construct, can you please send some links.  I have struggled to find much of anything.

dgszweda's picture

Larry wrote:

 

This is false. One can have a very high view of Rom 13 and the government while believing that the government does not have unlimited power and should in fact be bound by its own governing documents. That is a scriptural basis. You may not agree with it, which is fine. You are allowed to differ with people on how the Scriptures should apply to a given situation. In our system (America) the government is supposed to be bound by its governing documents. And as you might know, at least part of "the government" (and the part that will have the final say) has right now taken the side of those opposed to a vaccine mandate because of those governing documents. So if you continue so support the mandate, at least at present you are actually resisting the God-ordained government which includes the courts.

I agree with you.  At this point, I am not up in arms about the mandate.  The government is not the president.  What we have today, is that the Executive branch has submitted an order that outlines a mandate to have a vaccine or be tested.  There is not a mandate to inject something into your body.  You have numerous choices (i.e. get tested, quit, work for a smaller company....).  The Executive branch has submitted an order that has typically in some form been upheld by the courts.  With that said, the Executive branch is not the government.  It is just one branch of the government.  It has been challenged, in a way that it should, and now the Judicial branch needs to way in on the legality and the constitutionality of the order.  They may uphold it or strike it down.  The Executive branch could restructure the order to fit into the ruling or it could be deferred to the Legislative branch, who ultimately has full say in the matter, as they could create a law, or ultimately change the Constitution.

What I do have a challenge is the concern that we must now resist the government because the government has overstepped their bounds.  At this point, in our democratic republic, the government is no the president or OSHA.  So before we go crazy, we need to let the process work.  The challenge is going to be that if the Judicial branch upholds the order, and the Legislative branch chooses not to step in, than should we obey the government?  Has the government overstepped its bounds?  We are quick to call this Tyranny, but it doesn't fit into the typical definition of Tyranny.  We have a single branch of government that is responding to their constituents, companies and their medical teams.  We have not done anything beyond that at this point.

At this point, I am not supporting a mandate one way or the other.  I am just trying to lay this out in a more sane manner.  At the end of the day, if a mandate is enforced, than I will follow it.  I don't see the dangers or concerns that others see in terms of getting a vaccine.  I will not resist the government.  If the mandate is not upheld by the courts, than I will follow that.  I have many people in my Sunday School class that are highly resistant to taking the vaccine.  At this point, it is not mandated and I don't believe it is a Scriptural mandate that you have to take the vaccine.  I do fellowship with them and support their rigth to make their choice.

Bert Perry's picture

....but as President Biden went back on his promise not to do this, and ignored his own view that such an executive order would be illegal, it's hard for me to believe that he did so unaware that it was his political opponents who objected to mandatory vaccines, and that he would be disproportionately be putting his political opponents out of work and the like. 

In other words, yes, it is almost certainly intentional discrimination against his political opponents (and of course the African-American portion of his base that still remembers Tuskegee very strongly).  Now we might say "but people have a choice, and they don't have a choice about what race they are", and that's a real difference between Jim Crow and vaccine passports.  But on the flip side, not everybody feels free to use vaccines developed using the cell lines from aborted children, even if they're assured that it does not create a continuing demand for new abortions to obtain new cell lines.  So it's a "choice" in their minds akin to telling a Jew or Muslim that there is a pork mandate.  Ask the Maccabees how that one turned out!

And really, apart from the Constitutional and other legal issues here, the ugly reality here is that with this epidemic, the public health establishment has destroyed a huge portion of the trust that it took them a century to build.  Attempts to educate the public are increasingly overshadowed by known lies by people like Fauci and the horrible optics of shoving this down peoples' throats at the risk of their jobs.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

dgszweda's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Now we might say "but people have a choice, and they don't have a choice about what race they are", and that's a real difference between Jim Crow and vaccine passports.  But on the flip side, not everybody feels free to use vaccines developed using the cell lines from aborted children, even if they're assured that it does not create a continuing demand for new abortions to obtain new cell lines. 

No one is being forced to get the vaccine.  It is a vaccine or weekly testing.  But just to be super clear, the Moderna vaccine used the HEK293 cell line in testing safety.  There is no proof that this cell line came from aborted children.  Despite what pro-life groups will try to say or surmise, there is no documented evidence, nor is there any evidence verbally from the cell line creators that clearly articulates where these cells came from.  In fact the creator of the cell line Alex van der Eb said he was never told where the cells came from.  People are dogmatic on about this despite no crystal clear evidence on where they came from, and the currently do not contain any fetal cells and they are more than 15,000 generations and 50 years removed from the original cells (more generations than all of humanity).

pvawter's picture

dgszweda wrote:

No one is being forced to get the vaccine.  It is a vaccine or weekly testing. 

That's not entirely true. While the President's attempted mandate may have offered such an alternative, many businesses have been emboldened to make vaccination mandatory as a condition of employment without giving a third option such as regular testing. The choice for many is receive a controversial vaccine or face economic disaster, and those who remain unvaccinated are most certainly being singled out as bad actors and threats to public safety.

Bert Perry's picture

It's vaccine or lose your job, not vaccine or get tested routinely.  Read the EO. 

The evidence that it was a cell line from an aborted fetus comes from the scientist who isolated HEK293, who said that he "assumed" it was an abortion because the child was healthy.  Absolute proof, no, but it is probably a good hint.  The one reservation I have with that theory is that as I understand prenatal infanticide, I would have to guess that it would leave marks on the corpse that even I could pick out as such.  Death is by dismemberment, saline, etc..  So it's somewhat hard for me to accept a noncommittal statement like that as being honest.  It's a bit more honest than the old joke about "three shots to the head with a Kentucky Rifle?  Must be suicide!" verdict by a coroner, but it's still somewhat hard to believe.

One better argument that it was likely a prenatal infanticide rather than a stillbirth or death soon after birth is that if you're going to get a living cell line, you can't wait too long, and most doctors won't go to a grieving set of parents and say "hey, gimme that!  I want to do some science on your dead son!"  So the fact that they were able to retrieve a good cell line argues that the parents weren't particularly interested in spending time grieving their loss, which in turn suggests an abortion.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

dgszweda's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

It's vaccine or lose your job, not vaccine or get tested routinely.  Read the EO. 

The EO means nothing.  Read OSHA's ETS (https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/ets2).

Also, it is all conjecture about whether it was an aborted fetus or not.

dgszweda's picture

pvawter wrote:

 

dgszweda wrote:

 

No one is being forced to get the vaccine.  It is a vaccine or weekly testing. 

 

 

That's not entirely true. While the President's attempted mandate may have offered such an alternative, many businesses have been emboldened to make vaccination mandatory as a condition of employment without giving a third option such as regular testing. The choice for many is receive a controversial vaccine or face economic disaster, and those who remain unvaccinated are most certainly being singled out as bad actors and threats to public safety.

They may have been emboldened, but many very large companies were already doing it before the Executive Order.  To be honest it was probably companies that were giving the most pressure to Biden to pass such an order.  Anyway, regardless an Executive Order is not a law, so it will have to take time to navigate through the courts.

My gut says that the OSHA ETS will be struck down and the "Biden vaccine mandate" will not take place.  With that said, companies, even before any vaccine mandate from Biden have already enacted their policies.  Many of them have been challenged in court and they have been upheld.  There may still be something that is struck down, but as time moves on, it looks less likely.  Companies continue to outline and produce data on the cost of unvaccinated employees to their operations.  It is not trivial.  Now you can definitely argue the data, and the actual values, but it might be difficult for someone to say that it doesn't cost them money.  There is no doubt that the mandate emboldened some businesses.

Bert Perry's picture

Hmmm.....since the EO does not appear to easily match what OSHA has written, that could be highly entertaining in the courts.  So the EO "means nothing", but is the basis for the OSHA regulations?

Sometimes the way these things are done seems like an employment program for lawyers!

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

dgszweda's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Hmmm.....since the EO does not appear to easily match what OSHA has written, that could be highly entertaining in the courts.  So the EO "means nothing", but is the basis for the OSHA regulations?

Sometimes the way these things are done seems like an employment program for lawyers!

Officially there was no Executive Order for vaccine mandates for non-Federal employees.  The link you provided is the Federal Employee Executive Order which is different than anything directed at companies with more than 100 employees.  The President as head of the Executive branch can issue orders to the federal employees.  Since the President is not the head of private companies, nor necessarily the agencies that lay out rules, those Orders are typically given to direct other agencies to take action.  The direction that he did give was just an order directing the governing legal body "OSHA" to develop a set of rules that would be legal that fit a certain narrative framework outlined in the executive order.  It wasn't until OSHA developed the guidelines in the ETS that the real world rules were known. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/covidplan/