Wrecking Health and Safety to in the Name of Piety

Both the United States and Texas constitutions have strong protections for religious liberty incorporated in them. Unfortunately some folks have let their desire to participate in church services overwhelm their sense of self-preservation and their duty to protect their community by demanding the right to attend church services where their actions increase the chances of spreading a disease that is as much as 20 times more deadly than influenza. In response to efforts by local government to protect public health through limiting the number of attendees in churches and other businesses and in some cases closing them down temporarily some legislators proposed a bill to disallow any level of government from putting limits of any kind on services at churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples.

Should Proposition 3 pass in November the following text will be added to Article 1 Sec.6-a of the Texas constitution. "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not enact, adopt, or issue a statute, order, proclamation, decision, or rule that prohibits or limits religious services, including religious services conducted in churches, congregations, and places of worship, in this state by a religious organization established to support and serve the propagation of a sincerely held religious belief."

As Rep. John Turner pointed out during debate on the bill, if passed by the citizens of Texas the language in Proposition 3 "... would mean there could never be any restrictions on capacity." Those signs you often see at various venues servicing large numbers of people that say something like “Capacity Limit 230 by order of the Fire Marshal” would no longer be enforceable at any site where religious services are occurring because the Fire Marshal would be prohibited from regulating the number of people allowed in such a building even though that regulation is in place to prevent people from being killed in case of a fire.

Since Proposition 3 is so broadly worded, current prohibitions which have been upheld by the courts against congregations using psychedelic drugs such as mushrooms or peyote would be overridden, Rastafarians would have to be allowed to use of ganja (marijuana). I actually don’t have a problem with relaxing drug use prohibitions but point it out as an unintended consequence of unnecessary and poorly thought out legislation.

This kind of foolishness is counter to most underlying religious principles and weakens religious communities. Just like anti-mask and anti-vaccine behavior has caused far more deaths among Republicans, allowing Proposition 3 to pass likely will lead to higher death tolls from highly contagious diseases among religious people. Fortunately some religious leaders are forming coalitions to push back on Proposition 3 because they recognize that the health and safety of their flocks and the larger community is far more important than missing a few weeks of church services in the grand scheme of things.

If you truly care about your friends and neighbors push back on Proposition 3, talk to your family, friends and neighbors about it, warn them of the unintended consequences that risk so much, and urge them to vote no.

 Published in the Seguin Gazette - September 22, 2021

Martin Luther on Pandemic Responsibilities

I find it really interesting that the majority of anti-mask and anti-vaccination activists are Republican who are vocally Christian. You’d think given the early years of Christianity when much of the Roman world was consumed in plague it was Christians who cared for the sick and dying such that their caring and sacrifice made many converts that such a tradition would be maintained today. Instead we see many behaving in an uncaring and frankly un-Christian manner flouting mask requirements and worse beating those seeking to care for their fellows by reminding everyone to wear masks in their places of business.

Martin Luther had a lot to say about how Christians should behave in the midst of a pandemic, as the Black Death, bubonic plague, swept through Wittenberg and much of Europe. Luther was asked one of his followers Reverend Doctor Johann Hess, pastor in the city of Breslau, about proper behavior for a Christian in response to the deadly plague. Luther wrote a multi-page pamphlet — “Whether One May Flee From A Deadly Plague” — in response.

Regarding the responsibility of public officials in time of such a crisis Luther wrote: Accordingly, all those in public office such as mayors, judges, and the like are under obligation to remain. This, too, is God’s word, which institutes secular authority and commands that town and country be ruled, protected, and preserved…

Luther’s view of the individual’s responsibility toward others was also quite clear, he wrote: It is not forbidden but rather commanded that by the sweat of our brow we should seek our daily food, clothing, and all we need and avoid destruction and disaster whenever we can, as long as we do so without detracting from our love and duty toward our neighbor. How much more appropriate it is therefore to seek to preserve life and avoid death if this can be done without harm to our neighbor. Anyone who does not do that for his neighbor, but forsakes him and leaves him to his misfortune, becomes a murderer in the sight of God.

Luther pulled no punches on the topic of “Disregarding Everything Which Might Counteract the Plague and Death” writing: They are much too rash and reckless, tempting God and disregarding everything which might counteract death and the plague. They disdain the use of medicines; they do not avoid places and persons infected by the plague, but lightheartedly make sport of it and wish to prove how independent they are. They say that it is God’s punishment; if he wants to protect them he can do so with-out medicines or our carefulness. This is not trusting God but tempting him. God has created medicines and provided us with intelligence to guard and take good care of the body so that we can live in good health.

If one makes no use of intelligence or medicine when he could do so without detriment to his neighbor, such a person injures his body and must beware lest he become a suicide in God’s eyes.

Luther took a dim view of anyone who couldn’t be bothered to act in the best interest of the community likening not taking protective measures to safeguard one’s neighbors to letting a neighbor’s house burn without attempting to put out the fire. He considered it murder. I imagine he’d take the same dim view of today’s right-wingers who spread their anti-mask and anti-vaccine vitriol while simultaneously spreading COVID-19 and from time to time dying of it.

Texas Republicans Reward Snitches

As of September 1 women in Texas Republicans have essentially outlawed abortion in the state. SB8 makes it illegal to have an abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy and since women are often unsure they’re pregnant before six weeks this bill essentially prohibits 85% of abortions in Texas. The five worst members of the Supreme Court of the United States, three of whom are Trump appointees, have refused to even delay the effect of the bill until it can be reviewed.

I am deeply angered that women in Texas are already suffering from losing the choice of whether or not to continue their pregnancy as I don’t see where any man has the right to control what a woman does with her body. There’s been a lot of discussion of that already and most Democrats are pro-choice so let’s put that part of this disturbing bill on the side and focus on another insidious effect of this bill.

Texas Republicans gave abortion opponents in Texas the right to sue women who seek abortions and anyone who provides assistance to them from the doctor or nurse, to the friend or family member who drives them to the clinic, or anyone who helps finance the cost of the procedure. Texas Republicans pushed this bill through the legislature over the objections of women of all ages and Democrats on both houses of the legislature. Those who snitch on their neighbors or co-workers are guaranteed a minimum of $10,000 from anyone they successfully accuse of having, providing, aiding or abetting an abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy. Given that there are typically at least three people involved in an abortion, the pregnant woman, a doctor, and a nurse the snitch stands to get at least $30,000 in rewards.

There is historical precedent for this Republican legislation going back to Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Russia. The Nazis rewarded snitches who turned in Jews or anyone who hid or helped Jews flee. In Soviet Russia snitches were rewarded for informing on anyone who opposed or criticized Stalin or his policies. In Stalin’s Russian no one could be trusted as even family and friends might turn on you at any moment. As you might imagine such snitching was often abused by jealous neighbors, spurned lovers, and others with a grudge. Sociologist Jan Gross refers to such snitching as a form of ‘privatisation’ of the totalitarian state, since they enabled individuals to draw on the state’s coercive power to settle private grievances. Texas Republicans seem to want to privatize everything else so add snitching as another means.

Reliance on snitching is something that totalitarian regimes are known for. I find it interesting that my conservative neighbors refer to many liberal policies as communist and something out of Soviet Russia yet it is their restrictive policies and practices like snitching that most resemble the totalitarian Soviet state.

According to Psychology Today the term projection “is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another. For example, if someone continuously bullies and ridicules a peer about his insecurities, the bully might be projecting his own struggle with self-esteem onto the other person.”

If conservatives quack like ducks maybe they are ducks, or in this case totalitarians.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - September 8, 2021