The slogan “my body, my choice” is not a new one. It has been around for years and, until practically yesterday, everyone who heard it – or read it on a placard – knew who the person saying it –or holding the placard – was and what this person was talking about. That person was someone who identified as “pro-choice”, the choice in question being the choice of a woman to have an abortion.
Those of us who were on the right side of the abortion debate, the side that generally went by the label “pro-life”, would answer this slogan by pointing out that it was not just the woman’s body that would be affected by the abortion. The unborn baby inside her would also be affected. Indeed, its life would be terminated as that is the essential nature of an abortion. The pro-choice movement has gone to great lengths to disguise the true nature of abortion from itself, and from those women contemplating one. They use euphemistic language like “reproductive rights”, “reproductive health”, and the like in order to depict abortion as being merely a routine medical procedure. They object strenuously to efforts by the pro-life movement to shatter this façade and bring the true nature of abortion out into the open by, for example, showing graphic depictions of aborted babies.
It can no longer be assumed, when one hears the slogan “my body, my choice”, that the person speaking is talking about abortion. Indeed, it is probably safe to say that if you hear that slogan today, the chances are that the person saying it is not talking about abortion at all. This is because in the last couple of months or so the slogan has been adopted by a different group of people altogether, those who are on the right side of the forced vaccine debate and are bravely standing up to the mob which, scared senseless by two years of media fear porn about the bat flu virus, is supporting governments in their efforts to shove needles into everyone’s arms whether they want them or not.
The mob’s answer to this new use of the slogan, when they bother to respond with anything other than “shut up and do what you are told” is similar to the pro-life movement’s answer to the pro-abortion use of the slogan. It is not just our bodies, they tell us. It is our duty to do our part to take the jab in order to protect others from the bat flu and if we don’t do our part the government should force us to do so by making our lives as miserable as possible until we do.
Before showing how and why the pro-life movement was right in its answer to the slogan as used by the pro-abortion movement while the supporters of forced vaccination are wrong in their answer to the slogan, it might be interesting to observe another way in which these two seemingly disparate issues intersect. Among those of us who are on the side of the angels against forced vaccination there are those who are merely against vaccines being coerced and there are those who have objections to the vaccines qua vaccines. Those who object to the vaccines qua vaccines could be further divided into those who are against all vaccines on principle and those who have problems with the bat flu vaccines specifically. The latter include a large number of traditionalist Roman Catholics and Orthodox, evangelical Protestants, and other religious conservatives. One of the reasons more religious conservatives have objected to the bat flu vaccines is that the mRNA type vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna) are developed from research that used a cell line originally derived from an aborted foetus and the Johnson & Johnson viral vector vaccine used a cell line from a different aborted foetus in its production and manufacturing stage.
Now, let us consider some differences between these scenarios that render the pro-life movement’s response to “my body, my choice” valid, and the pro-forced vaccination mob’s response to the same invalid.
The pro-life movement objects that “my body, my choice” is not a valid defense of abortion because abortion causes the death of someone other than the woman choosing to have an abortion. This is a strong argument because a) abortion always, in every instance, and indeed, by definition, causes such a death, b) the death is always of a specific someone who is known, to the extent an unnamed person can be known, and c) the death is always intentional on the part of the persons performing and having the abortion. The opposite of all of this is true in the case of someone who rejects the bat flu vaccines. Someone not getting a vaccine is never the direct cause of another person’s death. An unvaccinated person can only transmit the virus to someone else if he himself has the virus. Even if he does have the virus and does transmit it to someone else that other person is far more likely to survive the virus than to die from it. This is true even if the other person is in the most-at-risk category. It would be extremely rare, if it happens at all, that causing another person, let alone a specific other person, to die would be part of the intent in deciding not to be vaccinated. Therefore, the argument that the pro-life movement uses against “my body, my choice” in the case of abortion, does not hold up as an argument against the same in the case of forced vaccination.
A second important difference is in how the expression “my body, my choice” is used by the two groups. The pro-choice movement uses it against those who would prohibit women from having an abortion. The opponents of forced vaccination use it against those who would compel everybody to take an injection. To compel somebody to do something requires a much stronger justification than to prohibit them from doing something. This is especially the case when it comes to medical procedures. A reasonable justification for denying someone a medical procedure that is not urgently needed to save the person’s life from immediate danger is far more conceivable than such a justification for compelling someone to undergo a medical procedure. In the case of the bat flu vaccines, the clinical trials of which will not be completed for another two years, many of which include mRNA which has never been used in vaccines before, which increase the risk of the heart conditions pericarditis and myocarditis, as well as thrombosis (blood clots) and Bell’s palsy, and which is for a respiratory disease that people who are young and healthy have well over a 99% chance of surviving and even those who are not young and healthy are far more likely to survive than not, the idea that compelling anyone to take these could ever be rationally justified is morally repugnant.
So we see that “my body, my choice” is weak and invalid with regards to abortion but is strong and valid with regards to forced vaccination (vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, etc.) The only reason there is a mob supporting and calling for the latter today, is because people and businesses have been terrorized by the media and their governments and subjected to hellish lockdowns and restrictions for almost two years, are sick of it, would agree to almost anything to be rid of it, and so they jumped aboard the forced vaccination bandwagon when the public health mandarins said that we need vaccine mandates and vaccine passports to avoid another lockdown. The public health mandarins are lying, however, as they have been lying since day one of the bat flu pandemic. All that is needed for us to avoid another lockdown is for governments to start respecting our constitutional rights and freedoms and the constitutional limits on their own power. They will only do this if we insist upon it. Letting them get away with forced vaccination is not a step towards the return of freedom, but towards greater tyranny. — GERRY T. 19, FREEDOM, MRNA, TYRANNY, VACCINES
Senator Rand Paul Stands for Sexual Common Sense & Against Forced Masking
Dear Friend,You can find my latest below!
Dr. Rand Paul Meets with Athletes Fighting to Save Girls’ and Women’s Sports
This week my wife Kelley and I met with a group of women who have experienced the unfairness of biological males competing in women’s sports. During the meeting, which was organized by the Independent Women’s Forum, we heard from world champion track athlete Cynthia Monteleone and her daughter Margaret O’Neal, both who have faced the difficulties associated with competing against males in track meets and competitions.
Like her mother Cynthia, Margaret, who is a high school sophomore, has also run against biological males. She probably would have won her first and only pre-COVID track meet of last season (instead of placing second) had she not been competing against a biological male, who predictably took first place. We also heard from three-time Olympian Inga Thompson, a retired road bicycle racer, who has raced with men when there were no women’s events, and she explained first-hand how much stronger and faster men are than women when competing in athletics.
I think the majority of Kentuckians and Americans would agree that boys should not be competing in girls’ sports. Thank you to these brave women for standing up and sharing their stories.
For more of Margaret and Cynthia’s stories, you can check this video out HERE.
Dr. Rand Paul Speaks on Foreign Spending and the Need to Prioritize America
It has always been my priority to put America’s and Kentucky’s interests first. This means focusing on funding critical infrastructure projects at home, rather than sending tax dollars abroad to fund infrastructure in Afghanistan.
On Wednesday during a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, I spoke on the need to prioritize our country’s needs over those overseas. I explained that during my time in the Senate, I have seen our national debt grow to over $28 trillion, while the U.S. has continued to increase foreign aid by 70 percent over the last decade. Following my remarks, I introduced an amendment that would have cut foreign aid across the board and allowed for those funds to be saved or redirected back to the taxpayers and instead spent on projects in their own communities.
Kentucky’s needs should always come first, and I promise to keep fighting to fund your roads and bridges instead of ones overseas.
You can watch my full remarks HERE and to read my amendment click HERE.
Dr. Rand Paul Pens Op-ed on Funding Infrastructure Projects by Cutting Wasteful Programs
This week, I penned an op-ed in the Cincinnati Enquirer on cutting wasteful spending and redirecting those funds toward our country’s critical infrastructure projects.
As I wrote in the op-ed:
I have long been a champion on the issue of prioritizing Kentucky’s critical infrastructure projects. Year after year, I’ve introduced legislation that would redirect one percent of non-infrastructure spending to domestic projects, and ensure more of Kentuckians’ hard-earned tax dollars are spent on important projects in your own backyards and communities. In addition, I’ve forced votes on cutting foreign aid welfare and using that money for roads and bridges here at home.
Despite my persistent efforts, Congress has continued to fail the American people on this issue. Democrats and some Republicans apparently care more about building roads and bridges in Afghanistan than those here at home.
Soon, the U.S. Senate will take up what we hope is a bipartisan infrastructure bill – I won’t hold my breath on that – but it could fund some of our nation’s most critical infrastructure projects, like the Brent Spence Bridge. America needs to invest in infrastructure, but with our national debt growing by the trillions, we must find a way to pay for needed projects without incurring additional debt.
Democrats are proposing a $3.5 trillion reckless tax and spending spree under the guise of infrastructure by including pet projects that have nothing to do with infrastructure. Did you know reparations for slavery, free child care, free health care, free cars, free college, free you-name-it, are now considered infrastructure by Democrats?
Certainly, a 60-year-old bridge that serves as a critical element of our nation’s infrastructure, carrying both I-75 and I-71 traffic through the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky areas, and serves as a connection point for 10 different states, would be higher priority.
Dr. Rand Paul Reintroduces Legislation to Defend Farmers and Landowners from Government Overreach
On Wednesday, I reintroduced my legislation to get government off the backs of farmers and landowners. The Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2021 restores common sense to federal water policy by redefining “navigable waters,” excluding ephemeral or intermittent streams from federal jurisdiction, and restraining the power the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers hold over American landowners.
While some would have us believe we can only protect the environment by giving the federal government more control over Americans’ lives, my bill shows we can act while still respecting Americans’ private property rights and the Constitution’s limits on federal power.
Kentucky’s farmers and coal industry suffered when the Obama administration implemented its burdensome WOTUS rule. Though the Trump administration replaced that rule, we know the new Biden administration will certainly try to return us to an unworkable scenario again. That’s why it’s now more important than ever to make an actual change to the law to fix the problem, and protect our land and invaluable industries.
“We offer our thanks to Senator Rand Paul for introducing the Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2021 as we look forward to the clarity such legislation would bring to the Waters of the U.S. issue,” said Mark Haney, President of Kentucky Farm Bureau. “Farm families have always been on the forefront of good stewardship when it comes to natural resources, but we need to have some clear direction on the definition of navigable waterways that are defined in statue, not by regulations that are subject to change with every new administration. We believe this bill will do just that.”
To learn more about the Defense of Environment and Property Act click HERE.
Dr. Rand Paul Recognizes Bird Dogs Coffee of Owenton, Kentucky, as Senate SmallBusiness of the Week
As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize an outstanding Kentucky small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit.
This week, it is my privilege to recognize Bird Dogs Coffee, a family-owned small business in Owenton, Kentucky, as the Senate Small Business of the Week.
Located in the heart of Owenton, Kasey Craigmyle Towles opened Bird Dogs Coffee in 2015. Kasey, who grew up in Owenton, and was the founder and operator of “Kasey’s Corner,” a successful gift shop, decided to pursue a different business venture that would uplift her hometown and foster a sense of community.
When Bird Dogs Coffee opened its door, Kasey and her husband, Randy, were seizing the opportunity to fill a gap in the Owenton market since there was not a coffee shop in town.
Like many small business owners, Kasey and Randy are actively involved in their community. Bird Dogs Coffee is a member of the Owen County Chamber of Commerce, and is an enthusiastic supporter of the Owen County Tourism Commission.
For several years, Bird Dogs Coffee has sponsored Owen County School District sports teams and contributed to multiple fundraisers for local organizations. Additionally, Kasey and Randy regularly donate to Owen County Project Graduation, which provides an alcohol- and drug-free graduation celebration for local high school seniors.
With Owen County High being close to their hearts, Kasey and Randy are also actively involved with the Owen County High School Alumni Association.
Bird Dogs Coffee is a remarkable example of how hard work, ingenuity, and discipline can turn a dream into reality. Small businesses, like Bird Dogs Coffee, form the heart of towns across Kentucky, regularly stepping up to support their communities.
To learn more about Bird Dogs Coffee you can visit their website HERE.
Dr. Rand Paul Hosts Final Meeting of the Intern Lecture Series with Guest Randy Barnett
This week I, alongside the Fund for American Studies, held the final installment of our intern lecture series, hosting over 250 interns from across the Hill.
These free educational opportunities allow Washington, D.C., interns to learn from prominent speakers on topics surrounding freedom, civil liberties, and free enterprise. Our lecture series is open to all D.C. interns and is a great platform to network with other students interested in economic freedom and limited government.
Our final guest this week was Mr. Randy Barnett, the Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University who spoke on combating the radical left’s agenda promoting social justice and what we can do to stand up to it, as well as the important role that the 14th and 15th amendments play in today’s America. He also talked about the need for more judicial activism among our youth, teaching them to stand up for our rights and defend the Constitution against those who wish to change it. It is up to the young people of today and future generations to shape a future that cancels cancel culture itself and says no to the growing ideology of group-think.
As the series comes to an end, I am excited to continue my work with TFAS in the fall, working to bring great speakers from around the country to touch on the issues facing our nation and highlight the importance of freedom and civil liberties.
This week, I joined Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News, Newsmax, Nextstar Media Group, Larry Glover with WVLK, and Jessica Rosenthal with Fox News Radio.
Have an Issue or Concern?
If you are a Kentucky resident and need assistance with a federal agency or with navigating the federal response and ongoing community needs related to COVID-19, please feel free to contact my Bowling Green office at 270-782-8303. One of my staff members will be more than happy to assist you.
Kentucky has also set up a COVID-19 Hotline at 1-800-722-5725.
Independent MP Derek Sloan holds a news conference on Parliament Hill to raise concerns about the alleged censorship of doctors and scientists as well as medical information related to vaccines. The Ontario MP has been critical of lockdowns that have been in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and also sponsored a petition questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.
He is joined by a trio of trio of doctors and scientists. COMMENTS He is not the only one – Randy Hillier and others are doing this for months, but it’s great news that politicians are waking up. This is criminal. What is Doug Ford doing ???? He should be held responsible for all the lockdowns, fake numbers of deaths and people in hospitals and pressuring doctors and nurses to comply with this evil agenda. NVP
What will it take to turn the tide ? those brave Canadian Politicians and Doctors that fight for our rights, fairness and truth need our support. How can we expect that after being told “fake covid propaganda news” for 18 Months that our Politicians and the MSM will ever retract on anything they have been brainwashing us with? When a few days ago US Senators had the courage to expose the “lies” and hold the ones responsible for the Covid Nightmare accountable, there was hope that maybe Canada would have enough politicians that would have the courage to do the same, instead anyone that speaks against the “planned agenda” is demonized, ridiculed, fined and fired from their job………..what kind of world do we live in ? forcing everyone to take the “Jab” demonizing anyone that does not want to be a “lab rat”. RR
YouTube has suspended GOP Senator Ron Johnson from its video platform for one week after he posted videos of himself during a Senate hearing touting experimental treatments for COVID-19, including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, a YouTube spokesperson told The Hill.
“We removed the video in accordance with our COVID-19 medical misinformation policies, which don’t allow content that encourages people to use hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin to treat or prevent the virus,” the person said.
Johnson, of Wisconsin, slammed YouTube’s decision as representative of Big Tech power.
”YouTube’s ongoing COVID censorship proves they have accumulated too much unaccountable power,” he said in a statement.
”Big Tech and mainstream media believe they are smarter than medical doctors who have devoted their lives to science and use their skills to save lives. They have decided there is only one medical viewpoint allowed and it is the viewpoint dictated by government agencies.
”How many lives will be lost as a result? How many lives could have been saved with a free exchange of medical ideas? Government-sanctioned censorship of ideas and speech should concern us all,” he added.
Johnson made the comments during a November hearing about controversial treatments for coronavirus, including hydroxychloroquine, which studies at the time found to be ineffective and, in some cases, dangerous for people who had the virus.
A study released Thursday, though, shows that hydroxychloroquine, also touted by former President Donald Trump, increased the survival rate of severely ill coronavirus patients.
”We found that when the cumulative doses of two drugs, HCQ and AZM, were above a certain level, patients had a survival rate 2.9 times the other patients,” a study published by medRxiv states.
Trump took hydroxychloroquine despite pushback from medical experts, including his White House coronavirus team member Dr. Anthony Fauci. Twitter last year restricted the account of Donald Trump Jr. after he posted a video of doctors praising the effectiveness of the drug.
Christians Defending Bat Flu Tyranny and Oppression are Deluded and Deceived
The last Anglican priests that I spoke to in person were those of my own parish in March of last year, the day before the bishop’s order shutting down the diocese went into effect. Since then, I have spoken to one of the priests by phone once, and communicated with the others through e-mail. Oh, I could have seen them in person again, had I started attending services when the parish partially re-opened last summer. That would have meant a compromise of conviction however. I will not darken my parish door again as long as I am told to register in advance to do so, to impede my breathing in that hot, stuffy, building for the hour and a half that I am there by covering my nose and mouth with a stupid diaper that has reminded me of nothing so much as a the Mark of the Beast since it was first introduced, and to “socially distance” while there. As far as I am concerned telling people to pre-register to book a place in Church because only a limited few will be admitted constitutes turning people away from the Ministry of Jesus Christ in Word and Sacrament and is an act of blasphemy crying out to heaven for vengeance. To be fair to my parish – and the entire Anglican Church of Canada – I did not include the practice of Communion in one kind in the above list of deal-breakers, since I think they are using pre-intinction as a means of distributing the Sacrament in both kinds and thus are not in technical violation of the Thirtieth Article of Religion (and the basic principles of the English Reformation). I watch their services on Youtube but I refuse to regard this as “participating in an online service” or anything more than watching a broadcast of somebody else performing a service. This is because I have taken to heart Aleksandr Soltzhenitsyn’s instructions on the day of his arrest in 1974 to those oppressed by Communist tyranny. Those instructions were to “live not by lies”. When the government refuses to respect the constitution’s limits on its powers and claims for itself the right to completely suspend our basic freedoms of assembly, association, religion, and, increasingly, speech, in its self-delusion that a respiratory virus can be stopped by government action, subjects the entire population to the absolute rule of medical technocrats, and goes out of its way to demonstrate its contempt for religion, classifying Churches and synagogues and mosques as “non-essential” while liquor and cannabis stores and abortion clinics are classified as “essential”, it comes disgustingly close to the Soviet-style Communist tyranny that Soltzhenitsyn suffered under and about which he warned the West. While it is true that rights and freedoms are not absolute, as our governments have been saying in response to challenges to their actions, this is not at all at issue. It deflects from the fact that they have been acting like their authority to limit our rights and freedoms is absolute – this is what “nothing is off the table” means – and this is the essence of totalitarian tyranny.
My purpose here is not to knock the clergy of my parish. I have explained why I haven’t seen any of them in person since last March to lead in to the fact that apart from them, the last Anglican clergyman that I had spoken to in person, earlier the same month, was the Right Reverend Donald Phillips. Donald Phillips was consecrated Bishop of the Diocese of Rupert’s Land in 2000, the year after I had left what is now Providence University College in Otterburne and moved to Winnipeg. He served the diocese in this capacity until his retirement upon the consecration of his successor, the current incumbent, the Right Reverend Geoffrey Woodcroft, in November 2018. When I was confirmed in the Anglican Church as an adult, he was the bishop to do it.
It was at the Centennial Concert Hall that I ran into him and his wife Nancy about a week or so prior to the lockdown. 2020 was the 250th year since the birth of Ludwig van Beethoven. As part of its celebration of this anniversary, the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra performed all five of his Piano Concertos and his Choral Fantasy over the course of the two evenings of the 6th and 7th of March. The performances, conducted by WSO Music Director Daniel Raiskin, featured Russian pianist Alexei Volodin. The vocals were provided by the University of Manitoba Singers and the Canadian Mennonite University Chorus. The 2019/2020 season was the first time in several years where I had opted to buy tickets for only a handful of concerts rather than the “Ultimate Classics” package that comes with one performance each for all the shows in both of the Masterworks series. I lost my usual seat doing it this way, but was able to take in both of evenings of “Back to Beethoven” as the Piano Concerto marathon was called. These were the last WSO performances that I attended. They are likely to be the last WSO performances that I shall ever hear because the lake of fire will freeze into a solid block of ice before I ever pay concert admission to watch a livestreamed performance and am certainly not going to be bullied into taking an experimental new kind of vaccine that took less than a year to develop about which the long term side effects cannot possibly be known just to regain as “privileges” the rights that were stolen from me by power-mad paranoid hypochondriacs shortly after the concerts I have just described.
I have seldom attended a symphony, opera, or anything else at the Centennial Concert Hall without encountering at least one, and usually several, people whom I know, and this was no exception. Indeed, I was seated right next to one old acquaintance for the Friday evening performance. It was also in the Friday evening performance – some people went to both concerts, others showed up only for the one or the other – that I ran into Don and Nancy. They were seated in the row behind me, a few seats down – very close to where my subscription seat had been, actually. I chatted with them briefly in the intermission and after the concert. Did any of us suspect at the time that shortly thereafter the diocese would be essentially closed and everyone forced into social isolation for over a year by public health orders?
Towards the end of his article, he raised the following hypothetical objections to his article:
Some might call into question the whole nature of what I am saying. Should a Christian publicly challenge the actions of other Christians? Is that not being judgmental?
His answer was “Not when the integrity of the proclamation of the Gospel is at stake”.
Very well then. Since nothing in recent memory has threatened the integrity of the proclamation of the Gospel more than the quisling behaviour of the Church leaders who collaborated with totalitarianism in the Third Reich and behind the Iron Curtain, I claim our retired bishop’s justification for his remarks as my own for my rebuttal.
He begins by saying that one of the pastors with whom he disagrees – he does not mention any names but it was Tobias Tissen of the Church of God Restoration, just outside Steinbach – had been quoted as having said “We have no authority, scripturally-based and based on Christian convictions, to limit anyone from coming to hear the word of God. We have no authority to tell people you can’t come to church. That’s in God’s jurisdiction.”
Retired Bishop Don answers this by saying “the New Testament presents quite a different picture of the responsibility of the Church for itself”.
He proceeds to justify this statement by making reference, first to the bestowing of the “keys of the kingdom” in St. Matthew’s Gospel, and second to the Pauline epistles in which the Apostle “constantly confronts and admonishes churches to teach, direct, and sometimes even discipline their members so as not to hinder or distort the mission of the Gospel in the world and Christ’s command to his Church”.
This is an interestingly novel way of interpreting these passages. Yes, the “keys of the kingdom”, regardless of whether they are understood as having been given to St. Peter and his successors alone, all of the Apostles and their successors collectively, or the entire assembly of Christian disciples (the Church) collectively, have traditionally been understood to include the authority to exclude from the fellowship of the Church. In most Christian communions the technical term for the exercise of this authority is excommunication. Some more radical sects use the word “shunning” with the same basic meaning but often with additional connotations of a more complete social ostracism. This is not where the novelty lies. What is novel in this interpretation is the suggestion that this authority can be legitimately exercised other than as corrective discipline in cases where someone refuses to repent of open sin or is found to be teaching serious doctrinal error. Had our retired bishop not intended to suggest this it would have made no sense to bring the keys up in this context. It is rather surprising, therefore, that he tries to bolster the suggestion with an appeal to St. Paul. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul instructs them to excommunicate a man who has been committing “such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles”, meaning a type that was condemned and considered extremely shameful by the rather tolerant pagan culture of the time, an assessment to which all the extent classical literature pertaining to the myth of Oedipus indeed, bears testimony. In his second epistle to the Corinthians, however, he told them that the punishment had been sufficient and to forgive and comfort the man, who presumably had since repented. The picture this paints of excommunicative authority is of a means of corrective discipline, to be applied as a last resort in extreme circumstances, and lifted as soon as repentance makes possible. This hardly supports the idea that the keys can or should be used to bar people from the Ministries of Word and Sacrament, not as an act of corrective discipline, but as an instrument of public health policy.
Novelty is not a quality that is valued very highly when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture and doctrine in the Anglican tradition which has long appealed to the Vincentian canon as the gold standard litmus test of catholicity and orthodoxy. In addition to the novelty of the Right Reverend Phillips’ interpretation of the keys, however, there is another problem in its conflict with Scriptural teaching on a multitude of other issues.
One example of this is the Scriptures’ teachings with regards to civil obedience. If the pastors protesting the bat flu restrictions are at fault their error is in practicing Thoreau/Gandhi/King style civil disobedience, for which there is no Scriptural justification. Civil obedience is commanded of Christians by St. Paul in the thirteenth chapter of his epistle to the Romans. There are, however, clear exceptions. The Book of Daniel in the Old Testament illustrates these. If the civil authorities require the worship of a false god, believers in the True and Living God are not to obey, as the example of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego who refused to bow to the golden image of Nebuchadnezzar and were thrown into the fiery furnace demonstrates. If the civil authorities forbid the worship of the True God, believers are not to obey, as the example of Daniel himself in the incident that led to his being cast to the lions shows. While the latter is the most obviously relevant of the two, I would argue that the first also applies here, in that the kind of trust and obedience the public health orders have been asking of us is the kind that properly belongs to God alone, making an idol out of medical science (George Bernard Shaw said, almost a hundred years ago, that we have not lost faith, we have merely transferred it from God to the General Medical Council, and never has the truth of this been more apparent than at present). The Lord Himself summed it all up in the twelfth chapter of St. Mark’s Gospel when He said “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”. While a general civil obedience is rendering unto Caesar (the civil authority) that which is Caesar’s, obeying when they forbid the worship of the True God or require the worship of a false one, is to render unto Caesar that which is God’s, and that is forbidden of Christians by the Highest Authority.
Another example is the Scriptures’ teachings with regards to sickness. In the Old Testament, the Israelites were told to separate those with leprosy, a far worse disease than the one that is frightening so many today, from the general community, to which they would not be readmitted until such a time as a priest had examined them and found them to have recovered. There is not a hint anywhere in the Old Testament, that banning all healthy Israelites from the Tabernacle or Temple, let alone confining them to their own dwellings and forbidding them any social interaction with their extended kin, friends, and neighbours, would be an appropriate or acceptable manner of preventing the spread of contagious disease. This is not surprising as it is an experimental new form of hyper-quarantine, first implemented in totalitarian countries like Red China, which the epidemiologists of what used to be the free world initially, although sadly mistakenly, thought they would never be able to get away with here. The Old Testament isolation requirements for lepers, of course, had the effect of heaping further suffering upon those already inflicted. Thus, when Jesus Christ arrived to fulfil the Messianic promise of a New and better Covenant, one of the most prominent signs announcing His identity as the Promised Redeemer was that He allowed the lepers to come near Him and healed them, even, in one notable instance, using tactile contact as the means of healing. He healed all who came to Him with any affliction and instructed His Apostles to do the same. The book of Acts records them doing precisely this. The Jacobean instructions in what is widely believed to be the first book of the New Testament to have been written are “Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up.” Rather a far cry from “Is there a nasty cough going around? Let everyone stay away from the church, lock themselves in their houses, and never see anyone else without wearing a mask”.
Given what we have seen in the previous paragraph, is it surprising that in the two millennia of Christian history, which have seen plagues far worse than the bat flu ravage Christian countries and at times all of Christendom, never did the leaders of the Church see their duty, mission, and call in terms of shutting all the local churches down and denying the faithful access to the Word and Sacrament. Rather they saw it as their duty to keep the churches open, so that in times of great physical peril – much greater than today – access to the source of spiritual health, more important than physical health, was not cut off and hope, therefore, was kept alive, as well as to minister to the physical needs of the sick and dying, even at the risk of their own health and lives. When cholera hit Canada in 1832 and 1834, for example, John Strachan, who would become the first Bishop of Toronto in 1839 but was at the time the rector of the parish of St. James, refused to flee the city but remained to fulfil his priestly duties, visit the hospitals, minister to the sick and dying, and bury the dead.
Previous generations of Church leaders did not see keeping the churches open in times of far worse plagues than this comparatively moderate one as hindering or distorting “the mission of the Gospel in the world, and Christ’s command to the church.”
Our former diocesan chief shepherd asks the question “And what is that Gospel?” to which he provides an answer “It is the supreme command of Jesus Christ ‘to love one another as I (Jesus) have loved you’”.
This is a very enlightening answer. Not enlightening in terms of the question asked. In that regards it is just plain wrong. It is enlightening in that it reveals much about the source of confusion here.
The Gospel is not the command to love one another. The Gospel is not a commandment of any sort. It is a message. As its very name tells us, whether euangelion in Greek, or Gospel – contracted from the Old English “godspel” (“god” = “good” + “spel = “news”) it is Good News. It is spoken in the indicative mood, not the imperative. In the ministry of John the Baptist and in Jesus’ own early preaching ministry, when the Gospel was preached only to national Israel and the events around which the Gospel narratives of SS Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are centred had not yet taken place, that Good News was that the “Kingdom of Heaven is at hand”, i.e., the Messianic promises are being fulfilled before your very eyes. After the Great Commission to take the Gospel to all the nations of the world, the Ascension, the descent of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost to empower the Church, and the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles, the Gospel in its mature and universal form was concisely stated by St. Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians. It is that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and was seen by witnesses.
That this, and not the New Commandment, is the Gospel cannot be stressed enough. The New Commandment is not “News” of any sort, Good or otherwise. That we are commanded to love one another was hardly something unheard of prior to the Incarnation. When Jesus said the Greatest Commandment was to love God and the second was to “love thy neighbour as thyself” He was quoting commandments already familiar from the Old Testament. Nor was His statement that the whole of the Law was summed up in these a new revelation. Indeed, while most often the Gospels place the two greatest commandments in His own mouth, in one notable instance He turned the question back on a lawyer who had been interrogating Him and got the answer He wanted (Luke 10:25-28) demonstrating that the idea was nor original with Him. The similar “Golden Rule”, which appears in His Sermon on the Mount, is common to the ethical systems of almost all religions, and was notably stated, albeit in its negative “do not” form rather than the positive form Jesus used, by Rabbi Hillel, who died when Jesus was about twelve or thirteen (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat a, passage 6), and who said of it “that is the entire Torah, and the rest is interpretation”. There is a kind of theology that sees in the command to love one another the essence of the Christian kerygma and treats everything asserted about Jesus Christ in the ancient Creeds as accidental trappings that can be discarded. This theology, and note that I am not suggesting that the Right Reverend Phillips holds this theology, merely that his unfortunate wording here expresses a thought that belongs to this theology rather than orthodox Christianity, is nonsense. If that were true there would have been no need for Christianity. While there is a difference between the New Commandment and all these earlier commandments to love each other, that difference depends entirely upon the facts of the Gospel as stated by St. Paul. Apart from that Gospel, the message of Christ’s death and Resurrection, the New Commandment is meaningless. It is the Gospel that tells us what “as I have loved you” means. Christ gave the New Commandment on the evening of His betrayal, to His disciples whom He had already told of His upcoming death and Resurrection, but like so many other things He said in St. John’s Gospel, it was these events themselves that made it comprehensible.
Isn’t it interesting that the example the New Commandment tells us to follow is that of One Who gave up His life for others? Isn’t it also interesting that the New Testament repeatedly describes this act as one of “redemption”. Today, the verb “redeem” and the noun “redemption” are often used in a sense that retains some of their connotations from New Testament usage but omits their original basic meaning. To redeem meant to purchase someone out of slavery and set him free. The New Testament writers use these words of the death of Christ to depict that act as one of purchasing freedom for mankind from slavery to sin. Therefore, the New Commandment tells us that we are to love one another in the same way as He Who gave up His life to restore us to freedom.
This is interesting because the Right Reverend Phillips’ interpretation of the New Commandment which he confused with the Gospel itself is that we are to love others by doing the reverse of what Christ did – giving up our freedom for them.
Now he does go on to support his argument with evidence from St. Paul:
In 1 Corinthians chapter 9, Paul outlines the many ways in which he sacrifices his own self, his rights and privileges, his freedom in Christ, in order to effectively witness to the love of Christ. “I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some,” he said (1 Corinthians 9.22)
For the Christian disciple, the effective demonstration and proclamation of the love of God for all people must take precedence over any personal demand or freedom.
St. Paul wrote his epistles to the Corinthian Church at a time when some had cast aspersions on his authority as an Apostle. A principle theme of both letters was to answer his detractors and establish confidence in this authority. This is what the Apostle is obviously concerned with through most of the ninth chapter of 1 Corinthians. In the first verse he gives his Apostolic credentials, in the second he declares that if he is not an Apostle to others he certainly is to the Corinthians for they are the seal of his Apostleship. He then goes on to talk about all the privileges and freedoms which he has as much as any of the other Apostles but which he refrains from for the sake of the work. The main point in all of this is that he, as a spiritual minister, is entitled to pecuniary support from them, but has refrained from claiming his right to the same. This is spelled out quite plainly in verses seven to fifteen
I wonder what St. Paul himself would have thought if someone from the Corinthian Church had written back to him and said that two thousand years in the future, someone would take his words about giving up the financial support to which he was entitled, so as to more effectively carry out the ministry of preaching the Gospel to which he was called and which he is bound by necessity to preach, as evidence that the entire Church should shut down, close its doors, and bar people from coming to hear said Gospel preached. I suspect he would be livid. I doubt very much that he would be any more impressed by the same application being made of his words later in the chapter, about meeting every type of person to whom he is sent in their own walk of life so as to more effectively share the Gospel with them.
His Retired Grace then refers to another quotation from a different pastor – again unnamed, but this time it was Heinrich Hildebrand of the Church of God in Aylmer, Upper Canada. Hildebrand had said “We are here to fight for God, we are here to defend the vulnerable.”
I could have told you what the bishop’s response to this would have been without having read it myself. However, here he is in his own words:
Surely the vulnerable we need to be worried about are those being exposed to the COVID-19 virus by persons not following the public health orders. Surely it is those languishing on ventilators in ICUs in hospitals across our country who are the most vulnerable!
I guess it all depends upon how we answer the question “vulnerable to what?” Even if, however, the answer is “the bat flu”, the Right Reverend Phillips’ thinking appears to be rather muddled on the subject. Those most vulnerable to the virus are not those who are exposed to it but those with complicating factors such as age, obesity, a compromised immune system, and other chronic conditions that make this virus more than just the non-lethal respiratory annoyance it is to the vast majority who contract it. When such people, the actual most vulnerable, have come into contact with the virus it has seldom been because of “persons not following the public health orders”. That is a lie, invented by arrogant politicians and public health officials such as those of our own province, in order to create a scapegoat for the failure of their own policies. The fact of the matter is that the worst and most lethal outbreaks have taken place in nursing homes where the virus spread got in and spread without any health order violations in spite of such places have been locked down quicker and stricter than anywhere else.
The bat flu, however, is not the only answer to the question “vulnerable to what?” Suppose that we supply “the public health orders themselves” as the answer to that question. We then get a very different picture of who the most vulnerable are.
Yes, public health orders hurt people. The kind of public health orders that have been enacted to slow or prevent the spread of the bat flu are especially harmful. This has been acknowledged by the World Health Organization, and even by our provincial chief public health officer. Take the mental health crisis for example. The Canadian Mental Health Association reported last December about how the “second wave of the pandemic has intensified feelings of stress and anxiety, causing alarming levels of despair, suicidal thoughts and hopelessness in the Canadian population.” It would have been more accurate for them to attribute this to the “second wave of lockdowns”. Viruses don’t have this effect. Mendacious media scaremongering might contribute to it, but overall this is exactly the sort of thing one would expect to see among people who have had all their social and community events cancelled for a year, have been forbidden any social interaction with their friends, and have been told their businesses or jobs are non-essential and must shut down. Public health orders are the primary cause of this problem. People are not meant to live this way, it goes against the social nature that God gave us, and when you force people to live in these conditions there will be disastrous consequences.
Since our bishop emeritus made use of the superlative degree of comparison in his own remarks about those vulnerable to the bat flu, I think it is fair game for me to do the same in my remarks about those vulnerable to the public health orders. Yes, some people are more vulnerable to the ill-effects of public health orders than others. Somebody who is single and lives alone will be more adversely affected by an order forbidding get-togethers with all except his own household than somebody who has a happy domestic life. Somebody who is in an abusive and unhappy relationship will be worse off because of a stay-at-home order than somebody who is happily married. Those who are independently wealthy, whose jobs can be done from home, and whose businesses are in no danger of being declared “non-essential” will not have the kind of hardships that lockdowns impose on those about whom none of these things can be said. Since the beginning of the bat flu scare the people who have been most likely to shoot their mouths off about how this never-before-tried experimental universal quarantine is “necessary” to fight a virus milder than most of those that caused pandemics in the last century, to lecture the rest of us about how unquestioning obedience to these orders is the loving thing to do and how expressing concern about economic devastation and the rapid evaporation of civil rights and liberties and their constitutional protections is somehow “selfish”, have been the people on the “least affected” side of each of these spectrums for whom the lockdowns have been mostly an inconvenience.
I will close with an observation that is related to the previous paragraph but is not specifically in response to our former bishop’s article. I note the irony that the clergymen who have been the most vocal in support of the public health orders have been the ones who preach the most about “social justice”. Indeed, I cannot think of a single dissenter from among their ranks. The dark irony of this is not just found in the fact that the public health orders, shutting down restaurant dining rooms and indoor public places like libraries and limiting homeless shelter capacities were put into effect before winter ended last year and again just before winter started having absolutely brutal consequences for the very poorest members of our society, while everyone who keeps droning on about “social justice” was glad to be ordered to stay home in their own warm bed. It can also be found in the fact that the economic result of the public health orders and the lockdown experiment has been to greatly enrich the multi-billionaires of the social media tech companies, internet delivery services, and the hopelessly corrupt pharmaceutical industry while bankrupting and driving out of business all the little guys, whose entire life’s work, and often the life’s work of their parents and grandparents before them has been wiped out through no fault of their own, but by the arrogance of some health bureaucrat who arbitrarily ruled their livelihood to be “non-essential”. This is accomplishing an economic transition to societies in which small, individually or family owned farms and businesses are unfeasible, and everyone must either sell their labour to some giant, multinational, corporation to survive, or live off of a government allowance. This is what Hilaire Belloc called “the Servile State” 109 years ago. At the time, the expression “social justice” was still in its infancy and to those who believed in it in its original sense, the Servile State depicted by Belloc was pretty much the opposite of what they called and strove for, the worst possible of worlds. Today’s “social justice” clergy have been calling for “universal basic income”, citing the pandemic and the “necessary” public health response to it as demonstrating the need for this measure, the most immediate effect of which would be to greatly accelerate the transition to the Servile State. Of course what they mean by “social justice” includes such things as Critical Race Theory, the inalienable right of biological males to participate in female sports, and every other notion of this type that left-wing academics have dreamed up and their students have uncritically accepted and regurgitated under the delusion that by doing so they are thinking for themselves, but precious little to do with anything that the expression meant a century ago. Should any of them be interested in the original version, I recommend to them the essay by that grand old Canadian economist, political scientist, wit, and Anglican layman, Stephen Leacock entitled “The Unsolved Riddle of Social Justice”. I wonder what Leacock would have had to say about people who consider it to be an expression of Christian love to wish government control, greater and more intrusive than any extended or even dreamed of by the totalitarian regimes of his own day – he died in 1944 when Stalin and Hitler were both still in power – on their neighbours? Gerry T. Neal
Support Derek Sloan’s Fight for Personal Freedom & Democracy
Over the past 15 months, it has sometimes been difficult to fathom whether a Public Health COVID-19 policy has come about from rank ineptitude or abject tyranny.
In the case of COVID vaccines now being pushed on children as young as 12 who do not require parental consent to get one, it may be one, or it may be both, but it’s definitely utter madness and it must be stopped! Canadian children who have already had their lives ruined by lockdowns and restrictions are now having their health put at risk through coercion to take an experimental vaccine for a disease that poses virtually no threat to them at all. Many adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, in both adults and children, are now being registered in Canada and around the world.
Please sign my e-petitionto suspend these injections for children under the age of 18 until adequate, peer-reviewed, published studies featuring long-term data can establish that these injections are safe.
The health of the Canadian people isn’t the only thing that’s threatened by the reaction of the political class to COVID-19. Anyone who’s paying attention has to be concerned about the health of the country itself, as its one hundred and fifty-fourth birthday approaches.
On Tuesday, the House of Commons voted on whether or not to adopt a Bloc motion declaring it irresponsible to hold a federal election during COVID-19.The final vote was 330 to 1, in favour of the motion. I was the only one who cast a vote against it. Click here. I was also the only one to vote against Bill C-19 put forward by the Liberals to amend the Canada Elections Act, allowing for the use of mail in ballots. They don’t call me an independent MP for nothing.
I believe that the right thing is the right thing, no matter how many or how few people are doing it. I did the right thing in voting against that motion. Democracy is stronger than any virus, and any suspension of democracy, no matter how “temporary”, is the surest road to ensuring its permanent demise.
As real and frightening as the authoritarian threat to Canada’s traditions of democracy and freedom have been during this crisis, the truth is prevailing. Our U.S. neighbours, as they overcome irrational fear and return to normal life, are taking note.
Last Thursday, I appeared on ‘The Tipping Point with Kara McKinney’, on the One America News Network (OAN), reaching 35 million American homes. The response has been huge, and in large part it consists of Americans shocked to learn of the degree to which liberties have been trampled in the name of the “common good” up here in Canada.
It continues to be my privilege and honour to fight as hard as I can for those liberties. On Friday, I rose in the House to question the government on the glaring double standard that exists when it comes to peaceful protests in this country. To hear the non-answer I was given, click here. While those who attend freedom rallies are vilified, and receive court summonses and harassment from the police, other types of protests, including the one attended by Justin Trudeau last summer, are allowed to proceed unmolested.
Our Charter rights are the same for everyone. I’d like to know whether this government supports the rights of all Canadians or not. And if not, why not? Speaking of freedom rallies, I was lucky enough to have a busy Sunday full of them.
There were 1,000 people in Aylmer, hundreds in Woodstock, and over 3,000 in Waterloo.It’s truly wonderful to be part of this movement as it grows. This has been a harsh awakening, but more and more Canadians are waking up to the fact that we no longer live in a democracy.
Authoritarians are attempting to control every aspect of our lives through fear and coercion. More and more, Canadians are realizing how unethical it is to quarantine the healthy, to isolate children, to censor science, to shut down debate, and to destroy livelihoods. It’s immoral to spread fear and panic and to promote experimental injections as the necessary price tag for getting our freedoms back. Our freedoms were never theirs to take, and we must take them back, because they won’t be given.
All along, they’ve called us selfish for fighting against lockdowns. That’s the biggest lie of all. It’s not selfish to want to be free, it’s only human. Those who would take your freedom are the only selfish ones. The only rational and ethical thing to do now is to remove every single COVID-19 restriction and return to life and freedom again in Canada! That is what we must never stop fighting for. Join me, and we’ll fight together, and never stop until we win! God Bless You and God Bless Canada.
Saskatchewan Realtor Under Threat for Questioning Theresa Tam’s Gender
More cancel culture, with termination likely soon to follow. Why must the expression of a controversial opinion mean that some bigots want the mans job? Whatever happened to freedom of thought and expression.
Derek Sloan Randy Hillier at the 8 minute mark: Excellent on freedom Pastor Michael Thiessen at the 12 minute mark: Science has no moral authority Maxime Bernier at the 22 minute mark (he speaks in French from 18 to 22 minutes): Covid normal flu Questions at the 27 minute mark At a press conference on Parliament Hill, independent MP Derek Sloan, People’s Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier, Ontario independent MPP Randy Hillier and Pastor Michael Thiessen discuss the impact of lockdowns that are in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic
Their group, known as the End the Lockdown caucus, has been vocal in raising concerns about the effects of pandemic-related public-health measures.