In a recent article I wrote for FBB (Faith Beyond Belief), I raised the point that our ability to discover what is true depends on the reliability of the source in which we place our trust. The article titled, “IN _____ I TRUST,” argues that whatever or whoever we insert in that space will either provide sure footing or lead us into any number of absurd and even dangerous paths. The implications of this become extremely consequential when the impact of those beliefs extend beyond our personal opinions or actions and impose duties and the eradication of basic rights and freedoms on others.

In the aforementioned article, I did not directly address the issues related to the response the “rona” because I had already addressed it several times here and twice in FBB posts. The problem is that those accepting the presiding metanarrative have largely become even more entrenched and the backlash directed toward those who dissent is becoming more fervent. This is deepening the divide not only in our culture, but within our churches and families. Simultaneously, increasing pressure has been applied to force compliance or punish any defiance. Many have already paid a high price for resistance, but the worst is yet to come.

For those either defending the mandates and restrictions or who maintain we should simply go along to get along, I have questions. First of all, do you have faith in those making the determinations and, if so, what grounds that trust? For your further consideration, I would like to know whether you feel that your free-floating confidence in those dictating policy should place a duty on others to surrender their principles to mollify your trusting nature?

Vast numbers of fellow believers have attempted to persuade me or even apply a degree of pressure to me to play along. This is based on their view that I am being needlessly stubborn or that I am resisting reality. Neither of these is compelling to me because I take it seriously when Jesus says, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciple and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” – John 8:31-32

While it is fair to assess my motives and the basis for using this passage to justify going against restrictions I may not like, this is not the case for me. Not only is my blog dedicated to determining what is true and seeking to apply scripture appropriately for each situation, but the proponents of the draconian measures being applied are appealing to emotion, not making an argument based on the facts. This I plan to prove in the plainest way I know how. Secondly, there is no denying that restrictions have limited and/or damaged relationships and profoundly hindered our ability to worship and witness to others and this should not be surrendered easily.

When Jesus sought to expose his enemies or address flawed thinking, he would ask questions. Since we are dealing with information warfare, this technique ensures that the pro-restriction side is not simply adopting talking points or dismissing counter evidence out of hand as merely competing opinions. I have no interest in opinions, but am fully committed to discerning what is true. If you want to win me over, you need to satisfy my reservations – and they are legion.

It should be noted that I am raising some specific medical claims being asserted by doctors – many of whom are being censored, threatened, or even losing their jobs. I welcome any statistical or scientifically verifiable challenges to these troubling claims. I state categorically that I bring these up because I am not hearing an evidence-based refutation of what they are stating, merely a dismissive claim that they are spreading misinformation or that they are needlessly generating risk and vaccine hesitancy. Gainsay is not a counterargument, but an effort to stifle debate and critical thinking.

1. If masks work, why do we need to socially distance? If social distancing works, why wear masks? If both work, why do we need lockdowns? Why do cashiers wearing masks, socially distancing and behind plexiglass insist I need to wear a mask?
2. Since decades of study have already shown that masking doesn’t work, what basis is there for determining it is effective to insist on masking? Since it is established that asymptomatic spread is not a concern, why are the healthy forced to wear masks or stay indoors when they are not a threat? When has masking and locking up the healthy ever been adopted to stop the spread of a virus and where’s the evidence it works?
3. If “vaccines” work, why do the “vaccinated” need to wear masks or socially distance, and, why do the “vaccinated” care if others are not “vaccinated”?
4. Since cases are growing of fully “vaccinated” people getting COVID, what makes these untested “vaccines” an emergency measure and essential to reopen? If those who got the jab and those who didn’t can both get COVID, what is the rationale for “vaccine” passports.
5. Since natural immunity has proven by far the best protection against catching COVID, why not do antibody testing before requiring people accept untested gene therapies? Why in Israel has 40% of new cases been “vaccinated” and only 1% of those with natural immunity? Why was there no focus on herd immunity until after the “vaccines” came out?
6. Should we scrap the testing process applied to all drugs before being released to the public, or only when pushing to get an untested gene therapy into as many arms as possible? Since statistically COVID-19 is on a par with the flu except in seniors, those with comorbidities, the obese, and those who are Vitamin D deficient, why pressure for injections at all beyond this demographic?
7. Why are the “vaccines” being peddled to children, especially in Canada, to the point where they are trying to induce children over 12 to get vaccines without their parent’s knowledge or approval? What is the innocent explanation for this especially since the case fatality rate for children is essentially non-existent?
8. Since herd immunity is the objective and asymptomatic spread is virtually statistically zero, why lock up the healthy in their homes or impose mask mandates? Why can’t this be treated like any other situation where, if you have symptoms, you call in sick and/or stay home? Why are citizens uniquely viewed as potential germ carriers and potential killers uniquely for this virus? If that’s not the assumption, why the draconian measures?
9. What is the basis for determining Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are unsafe considering many doctors permitted the freedom to give it to their patients swear that it has saved countless lives? If the objective is to save lives, why aren’t public health speaking to these doctors about their claimed successes rather than shutting down debate and access to these drugs? How could these be less safe than untested gene therapies? Has this been done because emergency use of untested “vaccines” is not permitted if safe options are available? Where are the numbers showing deaths from those treated with these prophylactic options compared with deaths after getting the shot? What is the thinking behind sending people home untreated and asking them to return only if the symptoms are severe? When is that ever a sage medical strategy?
10. Some doctors are pointing out that the spike proteins from the gene therapies are toxic and travel through the body instead of staying at the site of injection as real vaccines do. Why are they being silenced? Are they wrong and, if so, prove it? Why would they risk their reputations and jobs by promoting a lie in the face of intense pressure? Isn’t it true that people are more likely to be silent about risk if they are being threatened for speaking out? Since we don’t know the long-term effects of lab-generated spike proteins traveling to the heart, lungs, brain, ovaries, etc., why are people being encouraged to take the risk without this information?
11. Is there a good reason for a government to stoke fear and distrust in its citizens? If not, why stress case numbers that include those with minor or no symptoms alongside those who are hospitalized or die from COVID? Since these statistics are used to justify strict measures that limit our freedoms, what benefit is there in conflating these statistics? What was the reason to lump cases of those who died with alongside those who died from COVID? Why aren’t we told the age and health profiles of those who died or suffered serious harm to clarify what the true risks are to those without preconditions?
12. Why have our leaders sought to minimize or censor completely the statistics of those who died or suffered severe side effects after receiving their shot? Why has there been such determination to equivocate on whether those who died after receiving the injection had passed away due to the “vaccine” while padding the stats of those who died with and from COVID? What are the age and health profiles of those dying or having severe side effects after the injections and how do they compare with those categories without the shot?
13. Why has government been silent about social media censorship of any facts that challenge the wisdom of the government approved narrative? Don’t those in power that push an agenda have good reason to (excuse the pun), bury their mistakes? Isn’t it risky when government and those disseminating information collude regarding what can be reported? How does increased pressure, coercion and managing the sharing of information build trust in the “vaccine” hesitant and those perceived to not take the threat seriously?
14. Since we know rates of severe reactions or death from COVID are almost non-existent for them, what is the rationale for keeping schools closed and mandating mask wearing and injections to young people? What are the rates of suicide, depression and substance abuse in young people since the lockdowns? Does the failure to consider and speak about this impact mean that the statistics are devastating or does the government and media simply not care? Since every decision involves a cost-benefit analysis, why is this consideration not central to the approach especially to policy impacting young people?
15. What are the rates of increased anxiety, depression, abuse, substance abuse, domestic violence and suicide or suicidal ideation in the general population? How do the rates compare with pre-COVID data and how many of these individuals are low risk for harm or death from COVID?
16. Given asymptomatic spread is proven to be virtually non-existent, why were lockdowns deemed necessary or even wise? Why were people discouraged from even going outside despite the fact that sunlight is beneficial for stopping the spread of COVID?
17. What happened to the flu? Was COVID being rolled into “COVID-like symptoms and the two were conflated? If the argument is that the decline in flu rates was attributable to mask wearing, then how could failing to follow mask mandates be blamed for spikes in COVID cases? If people were adhering to these restrictions, why did COVID persist and the flu essentially disappear? What is the evidence that increased cases used to justify continuing restrictions were due to non-compliance or was this simply confirmation bias at work?
18. Doesn’t locking people up inhibit the goal of reaching herd immunity and, therefore, why do lockdowns?
19. How does closing small businesses and corralling everyone into box stores at once reduce the spread of COVID? How does limiting options stem the spread of COVID?
20. How much harm has been done by shuttering businesses, eradicating jobs, and paying people not to work? Isn’t it true that this has caused shortages that has increased costs at a time when people have less money to purchase goods? How have these lockdowns impacted the food chain and what are the health and social costs both for Canada and from other countries wanting our goods? What has been the impact to tourism and the manufacture of non-essential items that helped drive our economy and promoted businesses? What has this done to people’s ability to give to those in need? How much debt continues to be accrued that will burden this and future generations while we continue to compound the economic devastation and commensurate damage? Why is this consideration apparently absent from any consideration about decisions regarding COVID mandates?
21. What is the national health benefit to blocking off aisles of merchandise government has deigned to be “non-essential?” What gives government the authority to make such a determination?
22. What justifies the government deciding that access to abortions, liquor, and cannabis are essential, but meeting to worship our creator is not? Why is it that government set rules for all, but have been so dogged in their efforts to punish churches and pastors for non-compliance? Aren’t the threats of massive fines an all-out effort specifically to prevent churches from meeting and what is the reasonable explanation for this selective enforcement? If health was truly the primary concern, why not look at the fact that there have been no outbreaks in churches that either defied lockdowns or in states without lockdowns? Since the justification for closing churches for health considerations has not only not been verified but have been demonstrably disproven, what are the motives for doing so? Isn’t this how an atheist, communist, fascistic nation that persecutes the church would be expected to behave?
23. Considering government did nothing to squelch BLM, antifa, tent cities, pro-Palestinian protests, etc., but went after churches and anti-lockdown demonstrations, what is the rationale? Does this mean that government doesn’t care about minorities and leftists but are super protective of those who are largely white and majority conservative? Is this some backhand attempt at race-based eugenics? What is the explanation for this disparate treatment?
24. To the above point, if a government imposed and enforced mandates solely on minorities and women and exempted white males, would they be celebrated for their tolerance or denounced as racists, homophobes, transphobes and misogynists? What would we think if any country applied this standard to a certain demographic of its population and not others? Since so many of our lawmakers are violating their own mandates with impunity and no legal consequences, doesn’t this demonstrate them to be hypocritical tyrants?
25. If the government assumes that they must dictate and impose strict measures with punishment for non-compliance rather that sharing the potential risks and recommendations, what does this say about their low regard for our ability to manage our own lives and decisions? What does it say about those who defend the mandates based on the assumption government is better suited to manage our lives than we are?

The movie, “Runaway Train” involves a sociopathic inmate (Manny) who escapes from a maximum-security prison with the aid of a minor convict who looks up to him as a criminal hero. They inadvertently jump on the train in the movie’s title. At first, they are unaware of their situation and are only grateful that the train, aside from a single passenger, is empty. The prison warden manages to make his way onto the train by helicopter, but is beaten and bound by Manny. Having exhausted their options, railroad workers determine the least worst option is to direct the train onto an incomplete line and sacrifice the foursome to prevent further loss of life.

To my mind, the most powerful scene is when Manny taunts the warden while in the helicopter by bragging that he is free and the warden, blinded by his own hatred is goaded into joining Manny in the prison of the train from which neither of them will escape.

I am convinced most Christians have jumped on the cultural runaway train because they failed to consider the direction, the route, hazards along the way, the destination, and who is in control of the speed and the brakes. Many were lured in with the promise they could board without paying for the ticket when, in reality, the payment was merely deferred. The rates continued to climb precipitously while, simultaneously, access to certain cars were closed to them. Most opted to adopt the whimsical, but stringently enforced rules set by the crew rather than take the risk of jumping off and going the other way. They learned they were on the “Hotel California” express where you can check out anytime you like, but you can never disembark. Those who remained were grateful for whatever freedoms weren’t taken and were absorbed into the rest of the passengers bolting down the track with no brakes or hope of a safe arrival.

The failure of the Christian church has brought us here. We have neglected our duty to be salt and light to the culture and instead have allowed secularists who hate God to act as our self-appointed guides. The authoritarian approach to COVID is not an anomaly, but the latest usurpation of God’s authority and effort to squelch Christian freedoms and influence in the world. We are forced to pay for institutions that turn our children against us, create divisions within our families, neighbours and the culture, and demand servitude to their antichrist ideology. We are marginalized or cowed into submitting to false views that violate the values of life, marriage and the family, identity, science, truth, and personal agency. The church is making common cause with those inverting reality by calling evil good and good evil while only a full denunciation of Christ and the Bible will satisfy the bloodlust of those with whom they are negotiating in the vain pursuit of common ground. The fascistic response to COVID is the secular state flexing their muscle to demonstrate who is in charge and, for the most part, the church has taken the knee before Caesar instead of God.

There are examples throughout history and currently of godless nations where authoritarian governments have incrementally taken freedoms for the “good of the people” in the pursuit of their secular utopia. All inevitably turn into nightmares because human nature is always in play. Even though many nations have tortured and killed Christians, starved its citizens, and imprisoned their political opponents, we have bought into their premise that it would never happen here. The truth is we can’t know the specifics of what will come, but the signs are all around that the infrastructure is in place for unrestricted abuse of power. Haman is building his gallows, but there is no budding Esther to stop him from reaching his goal.

I offered a vast number of questions and I believe they are all valid based on the premise we are given – that this is all being done for our health. If you don’t care about the answers to the questions that I pose because you either trust that our government would never sacrifice our welfare in the quest for power and control, enjoy your trip, but this is where I get off.

“Circling back” to the notion of mere difference of opinion, such a claim is absurd on its face since people are not permitted to act on their disparate conclusions without great cost. Consider the following.

If I was a politician guided by the desire to protect the health, safety, freedoms and well-being of the population, I would be intensely interested in the answers to all the above questions and would demand it as a prerequisite before taking any position with certitude. Furthermore, there would be a recognition that the mental well-being and economic impact would be part of my calculus of determining any recommendations – and that is what they would be. My objective would be to inform and extend personal autonomy for people to manage risk for themselves once I knew that case numbers were helpful only for determining immunity and not a basis for stoking panic.

If, on the other hand, I was interested in power, control and subduing a people, I would seek to galvanize everyone around what I wanted to exploit in order to create the illusion of an existential threat. I would take charge of the messaging to push people in the direction I wanted. Law enforcement, sanctions, and social pressure would be applied to keep the tensions high and normalize the notion that government do have essentially unlimited authority to quash freedoms and/or dissent in the interests of some higher good. Special efforts would be focused on isolating and marginalizing those challenging my authoritarian efforts and the more that friends, neighbours, and family could be enlisted to “otherize” and even report on those who may not be sanguine about my tyrannical methods. I would do all of the above after softening and then crushing the churches and preventing my opponents from meeting and communicating with one another. On the other hand, those who fuel the chaos and can be useful idiots in my acquisition of power would be left to run wild as another contingent to be feared so that the ranks of potential opposition will be even less. Once all of this is in place, my supremacy over personal autonomy would be established and the mechanism for a totalitarian state would be in place.

While he is an American, talk show host, Steve Deace is correct in saying we are not a nation of laws and never will be; we are a nation of political will and always will be. Dictators and despots arise because they usurp God’s authority and those standing against them are either too little or lacking in commitment. We get the tyranny we deserve.