"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

Buck vs. Bell, Forced Vaccinations, and Social Hell

Henning Jacobson
I have a close friend with whom I work out every morning. He's a medical doctor, Ph.D. research scientist, and a fellow at the National Institutes of Health. He and Dr. Faucci are friends and co-workers. My friend has had his vaccination for Covid-19, has convinced me that the new RNA vaccinations are safe, and has been the reason I encourage all my senior adult friends to get a vaccination. 

I will not be vaccinated for Covid-19.

And my refusal has nothing to do with fear, safety, or concerns over my physical well-being (or yours). I've had Covid-19 twice, have developed natural immunity, will probably have it again (as will you), and will do my part to wash my hands, keep my distance from you when symptomatically sick, and will respect your decision to vaccinate. I am not anti-vaccination.

But I am against forcible vaccinations, mandated by the government, with punishments for those who refuse. 

Allow me to tell you why I am convicted to say "No!" to government-mandated vaccinations. 

In 1902, a Swedish American pastor named Henning Jacobson refused to get the smallpox vaccine and he also refused to pay the $5.00 fine (equivalent to $100 today). 

He was charged with a crime and his case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court where the Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision became a landmark case. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government stating that the government could mandate vaccination because "the collective good sometimes outweighs individual rights."

So far, so good.

Carrie Buck and Her Mother
However, nearly two decades later, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in Buck vs. Bell that declared the government has the right and ability to forcibly sterilize women for the public good. 

Buck v. Bell revolved around a woman named Carrie Buck. Born in 1906, one year after the Supreme Court ruled on the Henning Jacobson vaccination case, Carrie Buck was just 3 years old when her mom, Emma Buck, was institutionalized for being “feeble-minded” and “sexually promiscuous.”

Carrie's dad was absent, so child welfare government officials put Carrie in foster care with a family called Dobbs. Carrie stayed with the Dobbs for 14 years until, one day, she learned that she was pregnant. Carrie told welfare workers that the Dobbses’ nephew had raped her. 

But the Dodd's family argued that Carrie was mentally unstable, just like her birth mother, and so the Dobbs put Carrie in an institution—the same one where her mom was.

Carrie's baby, named Vivian, was born in 1924.

In the year that baby Vivian was born, the state of Virginia passed a law that allowed the government to forcibly sterilize people who were "afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity that are recurrent.”

The Virginia institution that housed Carrie and Emma Buck chose Carrie as the first woman to be forcibly sterilized by the government. Carrie sued to protect herself. The Buck vs. Bell case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Oliver Wendell Holmes
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
 ruled in favor of the government's forcible sterilization of women by famously saying: 
“Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

The ONLY case cited in the majority opinion of Buck vs. Bell was the ruling against Pastor Henning Jaccobson's liberty to refuse vaccination in Jacobson v. Massachusetts

Give the government an inch of your physical liberty and the government may take a eugenics mile of your life. Ask the Jews who lived in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s or the Muslims who live in China today. 

I freely support your decision to be vaccinated and encourage all my friends to do so. But please don't judge or condemn me for refusing to be vaccinated. 

My reason is not fear, nor a lack of scientific knowledge, nor a belief that vaccinations are evil.

I am refusing a Covid-19 vaccination in honor of a young lady named Carrie Buck who was raped and then forced by the government to be sterilized for the public good. I'll determine for myself what the "public good" actually is, and in my view, the liberty of individuals to stand against government mandates is better than acquiescence.

Once you hand to the government control of your body,  you place the government in the position of God. Everyone should feel free to choose a vaccination because it is an individual choice for one's own health. But we must safeguard our freedom and liberty to dissent against government forces.

Government isn't God, and nobody should trust its powers, its purpose, or its provisions. A limited state keeps our liberty safe.

I respect your right to vaccinate. Please respect my right to refuse. 

It's for the public good. 

88 comments:

Bob Cleveland said...

As you say, the decision should rest with each individual, as to vaccination.

Part of man's shortcoming as humans is that we sometimes make decisions without much real thought behind them. I thought a lot about this matter, and decided to vaccinate. And your decision not to, is no threat to me at all. Perhaps that's not the case with others who disagree with what you decided.

RB Kuter said...

"Once you hand to the government control of the human body, then you place the government in the position of God."

Now this could be used in the defense of abortion rights. Right?

Wade Burleson said...

RB, I find it fascinating how pro-abortionist get apoplectic with those who believe in saving a baby's life, insisting the government stay out of restricting their decision to "abort" then loudly condemn those who are against forced vaccination. As for abortion, it is a taking of a life (murder) and the government is mandated to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If I believed the only way life is SAVED is to vaccinate, I would vaccinate. I don't believe that to be true.

Victorious said...

But I am against forcible vaccinations, mandated by the government, with punishments for those who refuse.

Hmmm...I'm trying to think what punishments have (or will be) issued by the government for those who choose not to receive the vaccine.

In 1962 I went to Texas as a lay missionary to teach school in a Mexico migrant camp. I was required to receive 3 oral polio vaccines over a period of 3 months.

In 1969, one of my sons was not allowed to go to kindergarten without proof that he had been immunized for measles, mumps, and rubella. The same for my other son in 1974.

Those were mandatory vaccinations, but I saw them as safeguards against those illnesses. Years later I was working at Xerox and mentioned that in hindsight, I thought those mandates shouldn't have been required. One of the managers heard me say that and came into my office limping and walking with a cane. He said that he used to think the mandate to get a polio shot was an imposition on his freedom of choice so he didn't get one. And he said, "I'll pay for that decision for the rest of my life." He got polio.

So...since I am pretty much home-bound, I had decided that the trip to a designated location to receive the vaccine and wait in the heat of Florida, I had opted to not get the vaccine. But a very thoughtful neighbor knew of an organization called "BrightStar" that serves SW Florida and provided the vaccine to home-bound seniors in their home! She even called that org to get all the info and passed it on to me. I am going to get the J&J vaccine on April 6 right at home and it's the one-time shot.

My boys didn't get measles, rubella, or mumps and I didn't get polio. I'm going to trust the vaccine being offered as protection for the covid virus.

RB Kuter said...

Wade, thank you for your thoughts on how this relates to abortion.

I personally see the difference between being against "abortion" and the "taking of this COVID vaccination" as one being the attempt to "preserve" life as compared to the other's intentional "taking" of life.

My wife and I are supportive of all of our friends who get the vaccination, like my brother with whom I was discussing this today. We choose not to get it but do not discourage anyone from getting it or argue that our decision is better than that of others. It's up to them.

The basis of our decision is multi-faceted and perhaps will prove to be in error. Still, we are more at peace with it than we would be getting it.

My wife's and my position is that this particular push for the COVID vaccination is unprecedented as has been the entire government response to COVID. The "pandemic" has been extremely politicized with immense contradictions within the scientific community itself. This allows political parties of both sides to cite credible scientific sources to support their contentions. I see this as the reality and have become cynical of the motives in their entirety.

My memories of polio, smallpox, mumps, measles, annual flu vaccinations of the past, are that their effectiveness was never so controversial. I was young during some of those times but do not recall that they were ever so politicized with one party basing their support or opposition of medical responses based entirely upon their objective of refuting their opponents.

I do not propagate this view with my friends, almost all of whom get the vaccination.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Good post Victoria and I am closest and if I am honest. Right in agreement with you. We have eradicated so many diseases with vaccines that were once considered dangerous and many died, especially expectant mothers. I see both sides and don't know about a mandate for the Covid Vaccine as Wade has some very good and factual points, but I really don't see how mandating a vaccine as I am very pro medicine and holistic combined and also very pro vaccine. My kids were vaccinated for school and it was mandated. I have no problem with that. I had to take many mandated shots before I could begin RN school 20 years ago, which I could not finish as life happened. I saw no harm in that either.

Public safety in disease and the eradication of them is a huge deal for me and I do tend to look at those not vaccinated as irresponsible, But I could be very wrong. Thank you Victoria for being kind, irenic and prolific in your comment. As you see I need to be more like you when I grow up.

Wade: With all the respect as you know, having Covid twice with no needing to vaccinate is a concern to me. But I am reading and listening, trying to understand. Just not getting what the big deal on a mandate is. We do not mandate the flu shot and in full disclosure, this is the first year I have taken the flew shot in 20 years. But COVID is a big deal, and sometimes freedom must be given up for the greater good as in disease control. I say this even with all your many articles and links to proof of what you are saying. Just my 2cents.

Debbie Kaufman said...

I see I misspelled eradicate. My wrong. :)

Christiane said...

Sadly, the issue surrounding covid-19 vaccination and personal freedom has been politicized. It was done purposely for all the wrong reasons and we have paid for it as a nation. But we are a 'free' country, except that the way the virus was NOT properly handled cost us over half a million lives and many who have 'recovered' are not doing as well and will have lasting problems (my own sister-in-law).

Freedom is never free. Like our 'right to vote' which is sacred in THIS country because our soldiers have paid for it in their blood. But we are struggling now to sort out how this all happened that our country with all of its wealth and resources was close to the bottom in how the virus was handled.

Going forward, I hope people will make good decisions according to conscience and with some thought towards the 'civil contract' we make with one another to ensure that we will try 'to do the right thing' in accordance with the responsibilities of citizenship. On another level, we shall answer to God for what we have done AND for what we have failed to do, as long as we KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY acted. So I do hope that all who are thinking about being vaccinated give some thought as to how our country got into so much trouble,
and to how we can best live going forward in a good direction. We can't go 'back', no. But 'WE' are still a nation that is blessed far more than most nations and we have great resources and fine people who want to do 'the right thing', so it seems fitting to pray to God for Him to give them the light by which to find their way.

We need to pray for one another. We need to be thankful for what we have been given in abundance in this land. God has been good to this nation. Sometimes our 'freedom' gets us into more trouble than not, but the center is holding strong and like the child Anne Frank who perished in the Holocaust, I hold to her view that 'in spite of everything, most people are good at heart'.

Wade Burleson said...

Debbie, thanks for the comment.

"COVID is a big deal, and sometimes freedom must be given up for the greater good as in disease control."

I don't disagree COVID is a big deal. I disagree that everyone must be vaccinated to get it under control.

My point, however, is that when the government begins to demand certain medical procedures for "the public good," then government is one step away from demanding mentally disabled people, poor people, sick people, invalid people, and others must be operated on "for the public good."

China is placing Muslims in concentration camps to "indoctrinate" the Muslims for Chian's "public good." Canada is now placing people who test positive for COVID in "public camps run by the government" and its all done "for the public good." During World War II, Japanese families loyal to America were placed in concentration camps in Oklahoma, California, and other states "for the public good."

Who determines "public good"? It may be soon that the government believes all Christians should be "reprogrammed" for "the public good."

Thanks again for your comment!

Christiane said...

Hello WADE,

a clarification on this:
"Canada is now placing people who test positive for COVID in "public camps run by the government" and its all done "for the public good."

I believe Trudeau is speaking only about TRAVELERS coming into the country WITH Covid-19, and as for those entering without the virus, these travelers are to quarantine at home for fourteen days.

Ruth said...

Apples and oranges. You are equating two entirely separate matters.

Does the government mandate sterilization for everyone who is suffering from mental illness or impaired in some way? Of course not. This was one case, one family, one judge, one Supreme Court decision from almost 100 years ago – when eugenics was still considered a viable option. That idea did not fare so well after Hitler’s term of office. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (who, by the way, favored eugenics) was far from a perfect judge or human being in my opinion. His citation of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts was a flawed use of the reasoning for compulsory vaccination, as this one family did not expose a large number of people without their knowledge to life threatening circumstances.

And oh, the irony – this Buck v. Bell case was cited in the Roe v. Wade decision. Not by the side supporting abortion, but by the side opposing it. Justice Blackmun used the citation to support the stance that the state does not recognize an "unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases".

Were your children vaccinated? Are your grandchildren being vaccinated? Do you consider that governmental overreach? It is now required before most children are allowed to attend public schools unless there are compelling medical reasons against it.

I will grant you that the COVID vaccine is currently not through all of the formal approval process, but you should keep in mind that earlier vaccines were also mandated on an emergency basis during epidemics with very little testing beforehand. And pretending that this is not an epidemic is like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand, believing that will protect him.

I live in a very small community. And yet, I have been impacted by the loss of a long time friend to this awful disease as well as other friends suffering life changing consequences from COVID. A second friend is now disabled for life with heart and lung issues, and a third is living with “long haul COVID” causing a complete loss of smell and taste plus continual chronic fatigue. These people were not in the “at risk” groups, and were all very healthy before they were infected. None of them thought they had to worry about this so like you, they just went about their life as usual. Our local vaccination rate is about half of my state’s rate (which is also much lower than the federal average) and it is not due to lack of vaccine; they can’t fill available appointments because the populace is determined to protect their “freedom” by refusing to wear masks or get a vaccination.

I grieve over what has happened to my friends. I would not wish that on my worst enemy. I cherish my freedom as an American, but as they say “Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else” (France, 1789, Declaration of the Rights of Man).

It appalls me that some think their personal freedom is endangered by a government trying to prevent mass casualties from a disease that exists and spreads harm whether or not you acknowledge it. I personally feel that it would be well within the boundaries of “the public good” for the government to mandate a COVID vaccine. Given the politicization of this current crisis however, I see very little chance of that being done.

Rex Ray said...

Wade,

Judy has had her ‘two shots’, and I plan NEVER, but not in honor of Carrie Buck. (Until your post, I never heard of sterilizing women.) I found this on Google.

Buck v. Bell (1927) | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (asu.edu)

“Although Carrie Buck was the first person sterilized under Virginia’s Sterilization law, another 8,300 Virginians underwent involuntary sterilization until the practice was finally ended nationwide in the 1970s.

The Virginia Sterilization Act was repealed in 1974. As of 2012, however, the justification of sterilizing “feebleminded” individuals set by the Buck v. Bell precedent had not been overturned.”

Wade Burleson said...

Rex,

"The Virginia Sterilization Act was repealed in 1974. As of 2012, however, the justification of sterilizing “feebleminded” individuals set by the Buck v. Bell precedent had not been overturned.”

Yep. The definition of feeble-minded? Those who take charge of their own health and refuse the government's mandate. :)

It's ocming.

Wade Burleson said...

Christiane,

Thanks for your comment. You might click HERE for the information about Canadian "citizens" being interred.

Wade Burleson said...

Ruth,

The SIDE opposing abortion used BUCK vs BELL because it is so outrageously sick, so over-the-top stupid, and so in-your-face uncivilized that they ARGUED what happened at Buck vs Bell is PRECISELY what will happen with ABORTION.

No irony there - just smarts.

You also seem to try to promote vaccinations as if you didn't read what I wrote. I have no desire to argue the efficacy of vaccinations.

I am arguing the stupidity of people always doing what the government says.

Wade Burleson said...

And Ruth, please read Rex's comment.

Somehow you are misinformed. Carrie Buck was just one of 8,300 VIRGINIANS forcibly sterilized by the United States government. What about the other 49 states? Eugenics, forced sterilization, and abortion are triplets from the same mother - and the father of all is a government gone wild. The true Father is probably not real happy right now with the United States.

Sue Dempsey said...

Wade, I have had Covid, I choose not to be vaccinated at this point. I am not anti vaccine, for me I choose not right now. I have been criticized, but I feel free. One day I might see the need for me but the government will not be my deciding factor.

Wade Burleson said...

Sue,

You said in two sentences - in a much better fashion - what I've been trying to say for months.

Thank you.

Scott Shaver said...

Sorry Comrade:

Among the goals of American government list in our founding documents, there is nothing about vaccinating by force of decree.

Good thing you have no say in the matter.

Wade Burleson said...

Scott, are you advocating everyone be forced by the government to receive the vaccination?

Christiane said...

Hello WADE,

I did click on the link you provided. And I went even further into examining some of Tucker Carlson's other commentary on Canada so I am aware of the 'campaign' he has been waging against our neighboring nation. This continues what went on during the last administration when many of our allies were disparaged also.

Wade, I still have family in Quebec. I am assured that Tucker Carlson is giving out mis-information. My family are strong, honest people and Canada is an honorable country, a strong ally of our own nation.

When 9/11 happened, our air-traffic was stopped over our homeland. Many returning Atlantic flights to the USA were diverted to Canada, and our people told of how well they were treated by the Canadian people.

It is not in the nature of the Canadian people to be irresponsible, so I do believe that they are trying to intercept returning people WITH THE VIRUS and isolate them from the rest of the population. That makes sense to me.

Canada is not what Carlson portrays it to be, no. It is a strong ally historically and geographically. Carlson is a 'pundit', not a reporter of the news in my own opinion. Wade, I must respectfully disagree with you on this issue. But I thank you for sharing your own source of information with me.

Wade Burleson said...

Thanks Christiane.

Ruth said...

Sigh….you blew right past several items in my post. As one example, my use of the phrase “And oh, the irony” was intended to point at you, not the legal issue under question, as you used that case citation to make your point about the Buck v. Bell decision being governmental overreach. The same could be said about the use of the decision in the Roe v. Wade case. Mind you, I am NOT defending abortion rights; I am only pointing out that it is highly ironic for you that the same decision can be used for two very different sets of circumstances, one use which you don’t support and one use which you do (to a certain extent; I know you do not support abortion rights). You also did not answer my question about whether you consider mandatory vaccination for your children/grandchildren governmental overreach.

So let me make this very clear. I am basing my stance on Romans 13:1-7. This is a very plain exhortation to obey the governing authorities, since they are put in their positions of power by God. Remember, this was written when Nero was ruling so Paul was advocating obedience to a tyrant. The only time Christians should disobey the authorities in power is when they mandate things that are against God, as stated by Peter in Acts 5:29.

That exception very clearly shows that the Buck v. Bell decision was flawed. The governmental orders for sterilization were a sin against God, as we are to care for those who are not able to care for themselves. Yes, there were multiple cases where this happened and multiple state laws mandating this. All of those actions and laws were sinful. Forced sterilization is not showing care for others. In those cases, civil disobedience is acceptable – but those who are acting against the authorities should be aware that they may be subject to civil penalties for their actions and accept that consequence. But as I stated, eugenics rapidly fell out of favor after the world saw what Hitler did. Whether or not the law was reversed is of little consequence; there are many laws on the books that are functionally useless as they are universally ignored.

Mandatory masking, social distancing, and encouraging vaccination are different subjects altogether. There is nothing sinful in citizens following these governmental orders and requests. In fact, it can be argued that the opposite is true; to protect “the least of us” these things may be Godly actions on the part of believers.

If you are “arguing the stupidity of people always doing what the government says” then you are quite frankly placing yourself above what God says should be our position on governmental mandates when they are not sinful. You have every right to believe what you wish, but that position is not defensible biblically. I am not stupid, nor are other believers who follow the law. You owe us an apology in my opinion, since you have denigrated many people with that statement which violates your own policies for commenting.

David Panzera said...

Part 1
Back in 1999 I actually testified in front of congress. I did so at risk to my career as I was standing up, in my uniform testifying against the DOD. In that room that day was the General Officer in charge of the entire National Guard as well with him was the civilian Undersecretary for Guard and Reserve Affairs. They had plenty of cull colonel officers with them as well as some other aides. I was clearly going to be watched.

The DOD was using a false narrative much like what is being done here. They also used EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) that the Anthrax Vaccine was newly developed under so as to clear themselves. The fact is that the vaccine was made by Merk in the 50’s for cutaneous Anthrax at a hide handling factory in Manchester NH. They gave this vaccine to about 1800 men all between the ages of 18 and 30. It was two shots and was never really determined to sufficiently work (said to be efficacious in the medical world) for even cutaneous (skin contact) Anthrax. The men there handled hides all day and sometime animals get the spores on their hides and if you have small cut or sore on your skin and the spore gets in you can have painful boils.

Fast forward, President Bill Clinton has a friend who helped him get past a problem on his first campaign, being a draft dodger was what Clinton was, avoiding the baggage of it was what was needed. Enter the only publicly declared controlling interest partner of Michigan Biological Health Products Inc. (MBPHI) That man was former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral William Crowe. With his help in a public way Bill Clinton became President Clinton.

To help his friend, President Clinton had to change a major doctrinal position of the United States. It had been, to that point that any country who attacked us with chemical warfare, biological warfare or nuclear warfare would deal with a nuclear response from the United States. No longer. Anthrax vaccine was revamped. They took the original formula, doubled its potency and tripled its dosage. It went from a 2 shot mild serum to that of 6 large doses give in series. 1 shot, then one week then 2nd, two weeks then 3rd, two weeks then 4th, 6 month point #5 then one year mark #10. They were painful, and a heavy dosage. They forced young women that weighed in at 90lbs soaking wet to get the same dosage as that 220 pound front-line fighting soldier.

What in the world was the threat? What changed our national stance to this? After all, at the time, any nation state with decent facilities could weaponize a biological or chemical element in less than 3 years for a weapon of mass destruction (in human lives) but an effective and fully vetted counter would take between 7 and 10 years except for future technology in recombinant DNA approach (RNA). Women were suffering so bad that even the Navy declared Anthrax vaccine a Category D abortifacient. There were deaths and more and it was highly reactive (Reactogenic in medical terms) and not just me but a whole bunch of honorable officer took great risk. Especially one Major Tom (Buzz) Rempfer. He was a Stealth and F-16 and A-10 pilot. Extraordinarily professional and now a long time friend of mine. Buzz and others were successful in bringing the DOD to court. To cut what could be a long story short, we won many times. The DOD was FORCED to admit that the vaccine was 175 times (that’s no typo) reactogenic and that 7 deaths were fully attributed to it and that their so-called 19 studys was nothing more than a single data set falsely interpreted by DOD doctors and spun into official study. In other words they were lying…a lot. The goal was money and MBPHI got sole source contracts by then and had full governmental indemnification. Part of the win included that anyone forced to take it prior to 2005 were right to disobey forced vaccination.

lic.

David Panzera said...

Part 2
So, how did they continue to get away with it. Lies and subterfuge in the court and middle of the night work by insider friends at the FDA. These people completed the “final rule” which is on the package insert of every medicine and vaccine approved by them. This is a legal document. If a doctor actually prescribed aspirin for your treatment of cancer he or she would be breaking the law because that is not its intended use nor even an “off indication” use of aspirin according to the package insert. Anthrax was a joke when it came to this and the reason I say that is due to its arbitrary nature. If you said “I have a head ache.” I could say “Here, take two aspirin.” But, you reply “Dave, it’s a very very very bad headache.” So I foolishly say “Well then take 6 of them.” This is what they did with Anthrax vaccine because they took a vaccine engineered for cutaneous (skin, outer dermis) and simply turbo charged it and claimed (falsely) that it was good for inhalation anthrax challenge. No, it was not.



Why Buzz and others kept winning in court is because there was no real overarching threat. Secretary Rumsfeld was about to end the program then, like expected clockwork, the anthrax mailings. One to an old woman, one to Senator Daschle and others to other locations. It was clear the spores mailed were military grade and many to this day fully suspect Dr. Ivins at Ft. Dietrich for having done this. Hard to pin it on him…Conveniently he committed suicide.

Now, all of that is intriguing is it not? I do not think this vaccine from either company is bad. But the forced nature has me questioning our government and its necessity. On what planet does a virus with a 98.5% survivability by ALL people at ALL ages require us to forcibly vaccinate all people? It doesn’t. It simply does not require it. I have had it, I will most likely have it again. My immunity to it is every bit as good as any of the vaccines fielded and there is no data to the contrary that says it is critical to subject myself to it no matter how safe it is deemed. If a human being does NOT require foreign substance for the purposes of immunity they should not get it as we do not know long term effects nor a lot of other things about it. And I say this believing that so far it has been safe for most all who have taken it.

Enter VAERS. During Anthrax vaccine they did some cunning things to diminish its impact as they forced people to take it. Most all of the time they gave it on a Friday afternoon early in the program. They had problems with sterility and potency and some people had very bad reactions but many had what is referred to as a “systemic” reaction. A systemic reaction is a bad sore in shot location bigger than a half dollar. If you missed a day of work that would be considered a systemic reaction due to fatigue which is why Friday was used. There are all kinds of other reactions that fit systemic. So how do we know how many there were. We don’t And just the same with COVID we will NOT. I am absolutely guaranteeing that anyone who reads this did NOT get told about VAERS when they got the shot. If you were then I sincerely applaud the integrity of your health provider. You can see it here… https://vaers.hhs.gov/

When the Government Accounting Office was brought in during the anthrax vaccine effort by the DOD they concluded that VAERS was under reported by a factor of 100 times. This was shocking and was part of the reason the DOD was forced to admit things and why in the middle of the night the FDA miraculously completed their “final rule” for anthrax vaccine saying it was “safe and effective for inhalation anthrax infection” which by the way it is not. Hundreds or people were systemically reacting (especially somewhere between shots 4 and 5) and it was covered by the way they gave it and that they did not report problems.

Thankfully I never had the shot. I made sure to tell everyone that did that they need to document the heck out of it.

David Panzera said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Panzera said...

Part 3
COVID…extremely high survivability rates, low requirement for populace to get vaccine due to natural immunity conferred by most having it. Currently in use under Emergency Use Authorization NOT under FDA final rule...…and yet we have these contemptuous people who proclaim science when ever they think it fits narrative and yet here cannot demonstrate why we should force people except to say emotional arguments that you or other put my grandmother at risk. No, foolish person, your argument does not hold water. Vaccinate your grandmother and leave the rest of the healthy and otherwise unaffected populace alone in our constitutional republic

Ruth said...

David Panzera: “On what planet does a virus with a 98.5% survivability by ALL people at ALL ages require us to forcibly vaccinate all people?”

This planet. The MMR vaccine is mandatory for nearly all who attend public schools unless they have a solid medical reason to not get it. And the survivability rate for those illnesses is higher than the rate for COVID; on average over the entire population of a developed country like ours, the survivability rate is well over 99%.

That, however, does not tell the whole story. The morbidity rates for those illnesses and COVID are much, much higher. This is what concerns the scientific community. Morbidity from preventable disease can be catastrophic and make a person’s life miserable, plus it predisposes them to be vulnerable to other infections and illnesses and can be a substantial contributing factor in later mortality of those people.

This current epidemic is not a false narrative. I have too much personal knowledge of people whose lives have been changed or ended by COVID to accept that. Yes, since you have had COVID you do have some vaccine equivalent immunity – but keep in mind that those who have had it more than once likely have contributed to the evolution of the variant strains that are now spreading. If we could manage to substantially slow or halt the development of these variants with a vaccine it would put an end to the misery suffered by victims of this disease, and allow us to return to a fairly normal life. Natural immunity via individual infections over time will not get us to that point as the viral evolution is quick enough to evade this.

I cannot speak to your experiences with the DOD and the anthrax vaccine program. I am taking you at your word regarding your knowledge of these matters as I can’t imagine you would be deliberately deceptive about this. I do have some personal knowledge of previous medical misconduct by the military involving its members, as my family has a long history of military service, and this is shameful on their part. I have the highest admiration for those who serve and thank you for your service to our country.

And Wade – I apologize for further dragging this comment stream off topic. I just felt that Mr. Panzera (sorry, I don’t know your rank) deserved an answer to his question. I will stop now.

David Panzera said...

Ruth,
I sincerely appreciate your reply…

MMR is mandatory for “nearly all who attend public schools” so yes, we have a scholastic requirement in a place where the veritable petri-dish exists. Little children do not have nearly the hygiene of you and I in the public workplace which is why you do not see this requirement extended there and why millions who come to this country are not “required” to get it. Each of the vaccines in MMR were also fully vetted and tested not done under EUA. I acknowledge that those at risk for any infectious disease or virulent virus need to pay attention and take all precautions. That does NOT automatically extend to those with no comorbidity nor does the vaccine stop you from contracting COVID and spreading it.
In fairness, you have zero idea as to just how much my having had COVID has conferred immunity and you appear to seek to diminish that as less than vaccination when we do not know any such thing yet. There is only theory right now and no long-term data to suggest its less. And I never said the current epidemic is a “false narrative” but I do contend that many use false narratives to justify the governmental over reach which would include forced vaccinations. COVID may well become the new flu and as such we will see annual installments…are we now going to suggest we mark everyone and demand their passport of health like we have never done before for even the likes of MMR? For flu? For ANY other vaccination? It is precisely what I call it an over-reaction.

I do not argue that the vaccine will not do a part, but I absolutely do argue against the forced nature of it even when the FDA final Rule is completed and that will take some time

Lastly, 32 years of service is over…I need no titles. Dave will do, but thanks for caring.

Christiane said...

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-106hhrg63501/pdf/CHRG-106hhrg63501.pdf

Scott Shaver said...

Not at all. I am very leary of government mandated "vaccination" and, probably a list of other procedures performed against will.

I was responding to Ruth who, seemingly to me, would make vaccine mandatory.

Don't we have enough Pandora's boxes already open? ;)

Ruth said...

Dave and Scott: I will provide a combined post to respond to both of you.

Dave: Thanks for your kindness.

First, you should know that immigrants ARE required to have those vaccines as well as others, and have been since the 90’s. I know that because I happen to be friends with some immigrants to this country.

Second, I did not intend to infer that your COVID immunity was lesser than that of the vaccine. I apologize for not being clearer in my statement. You should also know that I thought you were inferring that COVID was a false narrative by your statement “The DOD was using a false narrative much like what is being done here.” That seems to say you consider this epidemic to be false; I apparently misunderstood what you were saying.

Third, no, I am not suggesting a “Papers please!” society. I am saying that the most efficient way to stop the spread of COVID is to basically “put up a wall” by vaccinating everyone possible. That makes it much less possible for variants to be able to develop, as the overwhelming majority of people will have immunity at a single point in time so the necessary “breeding ground” for viral evolution is minimized. This is how polio and smallpox were eradicated in our country. Sadly, there have been occasional outbreaks of both in areas where people were not vaccinated as a matter of course. But since those vaccines were first mandated, it has become a societal norm here in the US that you will get them. I would expect the same thing with the COVID vaccine. Yes, boosters may be necessary but that is not any different than a tetanus booster or annual flu shot.

I do understand your reservations about the emergency use authorization of this vaccine, but overall I have to say that there has been very minimal downside that I can see from this program. Certainly there are much lower incidences of mortality and morbidity than would be expected if there were no vaccine given and the people who received the vaccine were instead infected. Plus we just don’t know who will be impacted more severely; my friends proved that, as none of them were considered to be in any high risk category or had comorbidities that would indicate susceptibility.

On a personal note, you were apparently a very competent pilot and Air Force officer. My family has served in the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps and all of you have my deepest respect.

Scott: Yes, my personal belief is that the vaccine should be mandatory. See my reasoning above. But like I said, I don’t see that happening. And I think, sadly, that we are going to pay heavily for that lack; we already have paid more than I would like to think about. But please don’t consider me communistic (Comrade? Really?) just because I think the public health would be best served by a mandatory vaccine. Pandora’s box has already been opened and my belief is that we need to take measures to defeat its contents as soon as possible.

Scott Shaver said...

Sorry Ruth.

"Comrade" seems fitting when you attempt to rationalize mandatory vaccinations at the behest of an all-intrusive government.

Scott Shaver said...

Ruth:

Public trust in public schools is rightly and quickly eroding in this country.

Vaccines being mandatory in public schools just adds to the list of reasons parents are deciding to abandon this failing institution.

Wade Burleson said...

Scott,

Got it. Thank you.

Wade Burleson said...

Dave Panzera.

Part I. Wow!

Part II Wow! Wow!

Part III Wow! Wow! Wow!

Thank you, sir!

Christiane said...

Mr. Panzera,
thank you for your service which I respect greatly.

I would like to disagree with the way you wrote this in one of your comments, though:
" And just the same with COVID we will NOT. I am absolutely guaranteeing that anyone who reads this did NOT get told about VAERS when they got the shot. If you were then I sincerely applaud the integrity of your health provider. You can see it here… https://vaers.hhs.gov/ "


It does sound like the activity you describe with the anthrax vaccine testing was done unprofessionally and not in accordance with correct protocol for testing vaccines and that led to some very bad consequences for 'guinea pig' service members indeed.

I understand that. And I hope that the culprits who were behind the shenanigans were held accountable and that victims were recompensed, if possible, in accordance with the degree of their suffering.

But the Covid-19 situation is a different time and a different case. We know it is not a hoax. We know it is a deadly virus, far more so in our own country because there was first political mis-handling of resources to fight it and politically-motivated misinformation put out about the dangers of the virus, so many people have resisted cooperating with 'following the science' which they have also ridiculed as did their political leadership. Yet if you speak to first responders where infection was most prominent, you will be able to understand what they saw and experienced in trying to care for the overload of patients coming in to ER for help. The nation finally 'got it' when we saw the 'morgue trucks' that were refrigerated to keep corpses in body bags as they piled up outside of hospitals until morgues and funeral homes could begin to process the overflow.

So, indeed your testimony to Congress in 1999 was certainly appropriate and admirable.
But I believe your quote presents with an apples/oranges problem logically, this:

" And just the same with COVID we will NOT. I am absolutely guaranteeing that anyone who reads this did NOT get told about VAERS when they got the shot. If you were then I sincerely applaud the integrity of your health provider. You can see it here… https://vaers.hhs.gov/ "

the present situation is NOT the same as the anthrax vaccination disaster, no; as the three vaccines given in this country have been tested to standard and found 'safe'

conditions are different today so that the virus is spread among a civilian population and is deadly to some and has deeply affected the health of others

politics was instrumental in our own nation being almost at the bottom of the barrel for the number of deaths per population in civilized nations

Dr. Fauci is NOT the villain of this crisis now in the ways that the failed leadership that pushed the Anthrax vaccine untested on military guinea pigs were villains.

apples and oranges, yes, from my own point of view and I can disagree with you respectfully on your quote which I believe confuses more than clarifies what has happened during the Anthrax crisis from what is happening in our present crisis with covid-19

I am thinking you may have been much affected by the great injustice of the treatment of military personnel during the Anthrax crisis;
but I am conscious that many, many American people now feel that the FAILURE of the recent administration to take the present crisis seriously has been a much worse injustice tragically leading to over half a million American deaths . . .

Feel free to disagree with me, but I have shared my own thoughts openly with you, not out of disrespect, no sir, but hopeful that
IF
you might not have considered my points
THEN
you might come to re-think some of your present assumptions that show up in that quote

Thank you for any consideration, and again, thank you for your service to our nation.

RB Kuter said...

"Dr. Fauci is NOT the villain of this crisis now in the ways that the failed leadership that pushed the Anthrax vaccine untested on military guinea pigs were villains."

The thing is, Christiane, we don't "know" Dr. Fauci, his motives and his connections. You can guess, speculate, and presume these things from the level of involvement you and I have, but you're speaking of things that are much higher and involved than our insights and knowledge.

We can cite Fauci's credentials, etc., but there are a lot of very credible and honored scientists in this field of epidemiology who disagree with Fauci. He is more controversial and debated than advertised. Actually, you and I do not "know" his role in all that has occurred. He certainly is not infallible and has reversed his position frequently on matters as situations change, and I don't refer exclusively to the "disease" situation.

Better and more accurate to make such comments under the pretense, "I think, 'Dr. Fauci is NOT the villain of this crisis'".

Rex Ray said...

How about a ‘time-out’ and remember that it’s Easter Sunday?

We have a large star over the slide that’s 60 feet high. Yesterday, Judy switched the star to a cross.

“He has risen!”
“He has indeed!”

Christiane said...

Alleluia, He is risen indeed. :)

Scott Shaver said...

Christianne: The only "resources" being "mishandled" right now are those in the hands of a cognitively challenged president and his handlers.

You would not now have the vaccine you tout without the decisiveness and quick action of Trump.

Regardless of the narrative you buy into.

RB Kuter said...

Jesus was at OUR church yesterday!! He really is ALIVE! Strange, huh?

Plan on being with him today too! He never gets old! He keeps getting better looking every day!

Paul D said...

Wade – great post. It will be interesting to see how much pressure is eventually applied to vaccinate. My wife got the first shot of 2 shot vaccine, but it was really hard on her so she’s not getting the second one. She’s a strange case medically though. I haven’t gotten one because I’d like to let the dust settle a little before getting it.

what concerns me is that the leading causes of death in the U.S. remain the same, but we still feed on factory food, douse everything with chemicals, and drive our kids around everywhere. People are generally pretty bad at assessing risk, so we think riding a bicycle without a helmet is dangerous, but driving around with a buckled seat belt and munching on fast food is perfectly fine.

Thanks
Paul

Christiane said...

I found this to be encouraging:

https://saynotochristiannationalism.org/

Unknown said...

Ruth
Yessss.
Well written. I agree with you. The USA as viewed as an outsider is obsessed with government control. The scripture you quoted was indeed the best example given because there is no way shape or form the current situation resembles anything close to Nero. And yet it is acceptable to disregard that scripture and willing defy something meant for good!!

I will never understand this obtuse mindset.

Romycat



Scott Shaver said...

I find this encouraging. Christian nationalism is preferable to godless or atheistic nationalism.

Say yes to our Judeo-Christian influence and heritage.

Scott Shaver said...

Thanks Dave.

What you write is penetrating. Cuts through all the emotional and speculative hogwash.

It is what it is when we come to the hogwash idea of government mandated vaccinations.

Paul D said...

@Scott Shaver
"Christian nationalism is preferable to godless or atheistic nationalism."

You think? Do you think that was the gospel message to Zionists, zeolots, Pharisees and Saducees? It's better to have something resembling Judeo-Christian values than not?

This is exactly why tradition and creeds are important to Christianity...This is the gospel that was handed down...not that.

I for one would prefer nationalism to be associated with godless atheism than see the gospel confused for something that it's not.

thanks
Paul

Scott Shaver said...

Paul D:

Sounds to me like you have very little confidence in the power of the gospel to operate effectively outside the idealogical box you prefer to assign.

I have no use for that kind of religion.

Scott Shaver said...

Also Paul:

You have a way of lifting dialogue completely out of context and away from any biblical insights that could be mutually drawn in favor of grandstanding your own particular sociological, theological, and political constructs to the glory of God, if not to the amusement of others such as myself.

Scott Shaver said...

Paul:

Sorry. I satisty neither the historical context or flesh and blood model of "Zionist, Pharisee, Sadducce or zealot.

You might want to consider some more contemporary and accurate symbolic comparisons.

Since you're basically shooting from the hip.

Scott Shaver said...

Ruth:

If government decrees, let's say your forced sterilization or euthanasia...Is God still behind the order requiring full and unflinching obedience?

Scott Shaver said...

Finally, Paul D.

From the beginning, The Gospel has been "confused for something it's not".

Personally, I can't see any end to that short of the second coming of Christ.

Christ and his earliest followers have ALL told us that.

Paul D said...

@Scott Shaver

I appreciate that you are attempting an actual conversation.


"From the beginning, The Gospel has been confused for something it's not."

I agree with you. But instead of throwing our hands up and waiting for the second coming, I think the journey has always been about getting closer - weeding this thing out, incorporating this thing in. I freely admit I have much to weed and much to plant.

"symbolic comparisons"? These are not symbolic comparisons, unless you consider the zionists, zealots, Pharisees and Sadducees in the Gospels as symbolic, which I don't. I was simply pointing out that Christian Nationalism seems further from the mark, not nearer, and brought up what I thought were some examples in the Gospels. Of course, if you don't agree or find it helpful, please don't consider it any longer.

thanks
Paul

Scott Shaver said...

After sixty, Paul D, there is not much in the world anymore giving me CAUSE to "throw my hands" up.

"Weeding and journeys and sorting and incorporating these things out" are, to me, personal compulsions you must feel although nebulous, at best, in terms of their meanings to my understanding.

As for "symbols" since I don't know too many Sadduccees, Zionists, Pharisees, et al in the strictly biblo-historical aspects of your reference...

One must assume that you are attempting to superimpose some ancient religious guilds and/or their characteristics upon folks who, apparently, are shooting at quite a different target/"mark" than yourself.

Respectfully.

Scott Shaver said...

Paul: I have been "conversing" since our first interaction.

Christiane said...

"As leaders in the broad evangelical community, we recognize and condemn the role Christian Nationalism played in the violent, racist, anti-American insurrection at the United States Capitol on January 6.

We recognize the damage done by radicalized Christian Nationalism in the world, the church, and in the lives of individuals and communities.

We know from experts on radicalization that one of the key elements is a belief that your actions are "blessed by God" and ordained by your faith. This is what allows so many people who hold to a Christian Nationalism view to be radicalized.

While we come from varied backgrounds and political stances, we stand together against the perversion of the Christian faith as we saw on January 6, 2021. We also stand against the theology and the conditions that led to the insurrection.

Over the centuries, there are moments when the Church, the trans-national Body of Christ-followers, HAS SEEN DISTORTIONS OF THE FAITH THAT WARRANTED A RESPONSE.

In ages past, the Church has responded by holding emergency councils in order to unilaterally denounce mutations of the Christian faith, and to affirm the core values at the heart of Christianity.

It is in that spirit that we unite our voices to declare that there is a version of American nationalism that is trying to camouflage itself as Christianity -- and it is a heretical version of our faith." https://saynotochristiannationalism.org/


Dear people, it is very possible that the term 'Christian Nationalism' is not understood in the same way by all participants in dialogues. But it does seem that there has been a 'line drawn' that separates those who seem themselves as Christian who advocate for the participants of the insurrection of Jan. 6th at the Capitol;

and those who identify as Christians who view the variant of 'the gospel' as preached by the insurgents to be heretical indeed.

Thing is, without dialogue, and patience with one another, how can there be understanding between Christian brothers and, in God's time, healing in the Church?
So it is a good thing to try to communicate in whatever degree of ability that one has to do so, even if it is limited, even if it is often misunderstood.
It is a good thing to try.

Ruth said...

@Scott Shaver: I already answered part of your question.

Read my post from Sat Apr 03, 03:17:00 PM 2021.

And euthanasia would not be caring for others, either, so civil disobedience in that case would also be acceptable as taking a life for no valid reason is sinful.

I am sorry you are so suspicious of our American government. I am grateful to God every day that I am an American and live in a country where I am free to state my opinion in public or online without fear of being arrested, tortured, or killed for that opinion. Paul and Peter did not have that same assurance.

Paul D said...

@Scott Shaver

"Weeding and journeys and sorting and incorporating these things out are, to me, personal compulsions you must feel..."

Well, all I can say is I'm glad the giants of the faith that came before us, including some that are authors of the cannon, did not feel the same way you do and were happy to continue to weed and press on to win the goal.

"One must assume that you are attempting to superimpose some ancient religious guilds..."

that seems near the truth. Christianity is an ancient religion. A certain amount of superimposing seems appropriate to me.

"I don't know too many Sadduccees, Zionists, Pharisees, et al in the strictly biblo-historical aspects of your reference..."

I know lots.

thanks
Paul

Scott Shaver said...

Ruth:

Feel "sorry" alone without a shred of remorse on my part for displaying justifiable skepticism of governmental waste, dysfunction and overreach.

Perhaps I should likewise "feel sorry" over what might be interpreted as naivete on your part.

Ultimately, in light of your most recent comment, looks like you also pick and choose times and situations where you're willing to disobey governmental mandates despite your previous declaration that God's will is our unflinching obedience to civil authorities right down to jabbing needles in our arms.

Sounds a little squirrelly and inconsistent with your own previously stated exhortation from my chair.

Scott Shaver said...

Sorry Paul:

Not as interested in preoccupation with ancient religion as I am in a living relationship with a resurrected savior among currently living people.

Scott Shaver said...

Christianne:

I don't buy into one sentence or idea of your disjointed and TDS-induced guidelines for "Christian" dialogue.

You and I have entirely different perspectives on what you describe as "church healing".



Scott Shaver said...

Paul:

Did you personally know any "giants of the faith who came before us"?

If not, I certainly don't know how you venture clear-eyed to declare their feelings in life and about life were more consistent with your own than those of a guy like me, whom you've also never met.

Comically arrogant IMO.

Think I will trust more my own opinions drawn from the biblical texts about what "the giants" were thinking and feeling as opposed to what you claim they were thinking and feeling.

As a priest unto God through the shed blood of Christ, why should I accept you idea that the "giants of the faith" all thought, spoke, and reasoned just like you?

Scott Shaver said...

Paul:

The Sadducees,and Pharisees that you claim to know in a strictly biblical/hostorical way are wearing tassles, phylacteries, robes and convening in Sanhedrins?

Scott Shaver said...

Ruth:

Sorry, but dropping the names of the apostles Peter and Paul like incantations at the conclusion of your stated opinon adds no spiritual weight or significance.

In my opinion.

Scott Shaver said...

Ruth:

Euthanasia has for years been suggested and has been a hot potatoe ethical question debated over the issue of relieving unspeakable suffering and financial devastation wrought upon families through terminal illnesses etc.

I don't necessarily think that relief of human suffering constitutes what you describe as "no good reason".

Scott Shaver said...

Give it some time Ruth:

You may discover in the not to distant future that you are not nearly as free as you now think to "speak your opinion without fear..."

"Suspicion" and anticipation are two entirely different things.

Paul D said...

@Scott Shaver

"Comically arrogant...why should I accept your idea that the giants of the faith all thought, spoke, and reasoned just like you?"

Yes, that would be comically arrogant of me to say. I did not. I did try to say that the giants of the faith seem intent upon identifying truth vs. false gospel in the church instead of waiting for the 2nd coming for gospel confusion to be cleared up.

"The Sadducees,and Pharisees that you claim to know in a strictly biblical/hostorical way are wearing tassles, phylacteries, robes and convening in Sanhedrins?"

no. But I do know Christians with remnants of legalism, resurrection denial, nationalism and extremist tendencies. The Christian I know best is Paul D, and sometimes he has things in his heart that fall into one or more of these categories. If I can't apply the teachings that were directed at Pharisees, Sadducees, zionists and zealots to Paul D, then Paul D is sunk.

thanks
Paul

Christiane said...

"Le cœur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point." (Blaise Pascal)

Kindness to troubled souls speaks of gratitude to God for grace, but more so for mercy in one's own life. It is at the heart of Christian witness. :)

Scott Shaver said...

Thanks Paul.

I have no doubt as to your genuine convictions and sincere faith in Christ.

We are closer together than further apart.

Scott Shaver said...

Christianne:

I have always been a fan of Blaise Pascal. Great quote.

Scott Shaver said...

Paul:

Your comment regarding early Christian leadership contending against error in the church is excellent, and always good news to have subsequent generations teaching and adhering to the "major" doctrines of the faith.

The problem with subsequent generations (in my case Southern Baptists since 1979 and the advent of Paige Patterson) is simply this:

Too many seminary students who become pastors under the tutelage of many who have NEVER pastored self-appointing and self-annointing as doctrinal guardians who haven't a clue or shred of confidence in the timeless operation of the Holy Spirit....already for generations at work and still working in the hearts and lives of those who frequent the pews.

These are the folks who carry the majority of both the spiritual and physical aspects of Christian ministry.

Many church professionals, book writers, "educators" and parachurch fash-in-the-pans, need to shut-up temporarily, stand back....and get the Hell out of the way of what God has been doing through his own sufficient power since the world was called into existence...

By HIM.

Scott Shaver said...

Paul:

As to the second coming, I really don't see any evidence or promise of an upward and increasingly "just" world or an uptick in human social orders UNTIL the 2nd coming.

I don't think either Christ or biblical writers saw it any differently.

In the world but not of the world kind of thing....as the world and all it contains is racing headlong for a flaming conclusion at some point.

Paul D said...

@Scott Shaver

yes, I think the view you are against is postmillennialism. I would not agree with that either, but it would be nice if it were true.

thanks
Paul

Scott Shaver said...

Christianne:

Can you give me the exact wording of this collective "civil contract" which you reference?

I am not convinced such an item actually exists.

Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

some clarification (hopefully) of the phrase 'collective civil contract' in the following quote:

"Going forward, I hope people will make good decisions according to conscience and with some thought towards the 'civil contract' we make with one another to ensure that we will try 'to do the right thing' in accordance with the responsibilities of citizenship. On another level, we shall answer to God for what we have done AND for what we have failed to do, as long as we KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY acted."

I used the term 'collective civil contract' we make with one another as a reference to a NORM in our American way of life.

If clarified, we have certain 'norms' that we, as Americans, perhaps have taken for granted, but lately some of these 'norms' have not been honored which has confused and divided people. One of these 'norms' is best simply stated as 'good will' or sometimes it is called 'good faith' and it derives from very ancient understandings.

We now raise our hands to formally take 'oaths' in court or in depositions in an attorney's office,
but our English common law ancestors would simply 'swear' 'by the truth of my right hand' and in doing so, the individuals would accept the 'word' of the one whose hand was raised as being 'in good faith', and this was also backed up by even older 'norms' going back to Judeo-Christian understandings of 'good will' and 'honesty' as honorable among people of faith.
It is expressed in sacred Scripture in this way:

"2 Corinthians 4:2
Instead, we have renounced secret and shameful ways. We do not practice deceit, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by open proclamation of the truth, we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God"

AND

2 Corinthians 6:7
"By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left"


even the ancient Romans had a similar 'collective' norm that today shows up in our present day legal term "pacta sunt servanda" which IS 'carved in stone' as contractual but was once the Roman concept of 'agreements must be kept' as a collective norm among the people of ancient Rome.

So, when a 'norm' has failed, you end up with courts of law and contract law. But among people of faith, it is always hoped that they are operating with 'good will' and are honest with one another and wanting what is collectively the best for all concerned.

The last five years saw a lot of 'norms' attacked openly, and this has led to a lot of distrust and division among our citizens, sadly.

But IF in a court setting, we raise the one hand, the other is usually placed on some holy writings or scriptures or some document of importance;
which hearkens back to the English Common Law norm 'by the truth of my right hand'
and on further back to ancient Rome's public norm of 'agreements must be kept', and for Christian people,
the teachings in our own New Testament that commit us to 'truthfulness'.


Hope this helps to clarify any misunderstandings. Hopefully.

Scott Shaver said...

Christianne: I am sorry but your dissertation further clouds my understanding with regard to this "civil contract".

I would really like for you to produce the precise text or substance of aforementioned "contract".

If a text does not exist, there is no "contract".

The liberal left in this country uses this same terminology of a nebulous "civil contract" often in political forums as if this nonexistent "contract" is written on tablets of stone.

However, I have yet to see these tablets of stone and have always wondered exactly when and where we received this "contract" from the hands of Uncle Sam following his descent from the mountain top.

Respectfully.

Scott Shaver said...

Paul:

I tend a little more toward Amillennialism, but enjoy hearing and reading about all eschatological interpretations.

Scott Shaver said...

Christianne:

The New Testament and "social contract theory" are not companions.

Over the last three hundred years, social contract theory has severed all ties with the basic principles of contract law.

Consequently, millions of people (like myself) reject the idea of collective obligation to a contract which does not exist and has not been signed by any living person.

Consequently, this nonexistent "social contract" has become nothing more than an object of political sloganeering continually employed in our day by the socialist left element in this country.

The closest thing we have in part to a "social contract" is The Constitution.

Appears that contract is being further breached and nullified at the highest government levels now almost on a weekly basis.

Scott Shaver said...

Ruth:

I tend to believe that if our government is as concerned about human casualties as you imply, we would not have this current crisis and chaos at our Southern border.

Bodies and bones are scattered like broken potsherds all along the Rio Grande.

Paul D said...

@Scott Shaver
@Christiane

"social contract"

are you referring to natural law? If so - I agree, it has been a primary argument against atheism for...millennia?

That it's not in writing is the whole point, Scott Shaver. There can only be one explanation for it's existence. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are fine examples of fruits of it though.

thanks
Paul

Christiane said...

Hello Paul

:)

I think you have it right if you are thinking along these lines:

" I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5"


AND

"1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9 "


PAUL, your 'name-sake', St. Paul, spoke these words at the Aeopagus in Greece:


you also find reference to it in sacred Scripture in this way:
" And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, Ye men of Athens, in all things, I perceive that ye are very religious.

23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this I set forth unto you.

24 The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

25 neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

26 and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined [their] appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us:

28 for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. "


Paul, my own thinking was also somewhat of a derivative of your conclusion. Well done, sir! I am focusing more inward on a universality of 'moral conscience' among human kind that knows instinctively what is 'good' and what is 'evil';

but the 'Natural Law' is most definitely a superior observation, yes. :)

Are you an academic, sir?

(from Chapter 17, Acts of the Apostles)

Paul D said...

@Christiane

yes, in my own mind I am a great academic. Others may disagree, but they are wrong. :)

I would credit the first chapter of Mere Christianity as my intro to the idea of natural law, but is a very old idea - Aristotle, Aquinas, etc.

The Apostle Paul also said this, which I think speaks directly to natural law:

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
Romans 2:14-15

thanks
Paul

Scott Shaver said...

Perhaps Paul:

Have you noticed lately how the Constitution has been massacred and disregarded by those who insist we have a "binding social contract"?

Christiane said...

Hello Paul,

I think your scriptural reference is very appropriate for illustrating the 'Natural Law' especially in the reference specifically to 'the law written on their hearts'.

I was blogging on evangelical blogs for about a year when I realized that the understanding of 'moral conscience' as a guide was not something understood in the same way that my own Church understood it. But your reference comes about as close as possible for any readers of sacred Scripture to pick up on some of the concept of 'moral conscience'.

Thanks for the dialogue. I've enjoyed it, sir.

Paul D said...

@Scott Shaver

I'm really not familiar with the reference to a binding social contract. From the context of your comments, I take it that this is a statement that comes from the left. Insofar as "social contract" relates to natural law, I think it's a healthy idea. But natural law is not "binding" - people accuse and excuse themselves by it all day every day, including myself.

What's interesting is that both the right and the left appeal to natural law to advance their causes. Compassion, generosity, equality - these are good things. Justice, freedom, success from hard work - these are good things.

thanks
Paul

Rex Ray said...

Wade,

My daughter texted today: “I got my first shot. I’ll get my second shot as soon as the waitress comes back.”

I didn’t get it, but Judy did. 😊