Separation of Church and State – Answering Critics

[The Barbarian]

esus chose to touch this man --the Messiah didn't hide in the basement of a cottage out of fear of contracting a disease

Both He and His Disciples ministered to the sick (Luke 17:12, etc.), blessed them, etc. They didn't hide from the world because some health official told them to "socially distance"

Since no one really knew how communicable diseases were spread, not surprising. But notice, he didn't tell people to go socialize with lepers. For good reason.

 

[Merrill]

Since no one really knew how communicable diseases were spread, not surprising. But notice, he didn't tell people to go socialize with lepers. For good reason.

Jesus and His disciples interacted with, and touched lepers

and according to your interpretation of Hebrew law, He would have been in violation of that law

I don't need to explain further

 

[The Barbarian]

Jesus and His disciples interacted with, and touched lepers

Well yes. God, you know. Or are you assuming that He couldn't protect his disciples?

and according to your interpretation of Hebrew law, He would have been in violation of that law

And you think God is subject to the Law? I think I see the problem here.

 

[Merrill]

Well yes. God, you know. Or are you assuming that He couldn't protect his disciples?


And you think God is subject to the Law? I think I see the problem here.

God being subject to the law and being subservient to it was my entire point (which He is not)

the original post in question above, asserted that Jesus rightfully deferred to to the authority of the Rabbis by sending a cured leper into their midst. That is nonsense, because Christ broke with established law and interacted with lepers, as did His disciples, and never once suggested lepers should be banished from society or the religious community.

Likewise, your claim " But notice, he didn't tell people to go socialize with lepers" is complete nonsense as well, for the same reason.

or maybe you would like to show me the verse where Jesus tells the world that lepers should be banished from society, the community of God, and the Kingdom of God. I'll wait

 

[The Barbarian]

the original post in question above, asserted that Jesus rightfully deferred to to the authority of the Rabbis by sending a cured leper into their midst. That is nonsense, because Christ broke with established law and interacted with lepers, as did His disciples, and never once suggested lepers should be banished from society or the religious community.

Likewise, your claim " But notice, he didn't tell people to go socialize with lepers" is complete nonsense as well, for the same reason.

It's just a fact. If you consider reality to be "complete nonsense, that's an important clue. And I notice that when He cured the leper, He told him to go and show himself to the priest as required by the Law.

 

[Merrill]

It's just a fact. If you consider reality to be "complete nonsense, that's an important clue. And I notice that when He cured the leper, He told him to go and show himself to the priest as required by the Law.

I didn't say reality was nonsense

I said your claim(s) were nonsense

if the law says lepers must be ostracized from society and the religious community, and Jesus and His disciples were to follow that law, they never would have interacted with, and in the case of Christ, healed lepers. So He clearly wasn't doing what was "required by law"

the fact you can't see or understand that obvious contradiction is not my problem

 

[The Barbarian]

I didn't say reality was nonsense

I said your claim(s) were nonsense

My claim:
But notice, he didn't tell people to go socialize with lepers.

It's just a fact. And reality is not "complete nonsense." Reality beats ideology, every time.

 

[Merrill]

My claim:
But notice, he didn't tell people to go socialize with lepers.

It's just a fact. And reality is not "complete nonsense." Reality beats ideology, every time.

and when did he tell people to ostracize lepers from the community and religious spaces?

 

[The Barbarian]

I didn't say reality was nonsense

I said your claim(s) were nonsense

My claim:
But notice, he didn't tell people to go socialize with lepers.
It's just a fact. And reality is not "complete nonsense." Reality beats ideology, every time.

and when did he tell people to ostracize lepers from the community and religious spaces?

It would be so much easier if we could argue against things we image people say, instead of things they actually say. But you know, reality again.

 

[Merrill]

My claim:
But notice, he didn't tell people to go socialize with lepers.
It's just a fact. And reality is not "complete nonsense." Reality beats ideology, every time.



It would be so much easier if we could argue against things we image people say, instead of things they actually say. But you know, reality again.

Your claim: "he didn't tell people to go socialize with lepers."

meaning: Jesus was against people socializing with lepers yes?

then why did He and His disciples interact with lepers?

"It would be so much easier if we could argue against things we image people say"

I don't have to imagine anything: I know exactly what Jesus said about many of these things, I posted scripture above

You do this all the time: make some kind of vague affirmative claim, and then back off it, rephrase what you said, insult the people interacting with you, and play games

So what is it going to be? Do you believe that Jesus demanded lepers be ostracized from civic and religious life, and that such unfortunates were unworthy of the Kingdom? That seems to be what you are implying. If it isn't what you are saying, then make a coherent, defensible claim

I would also like to hear from other people on this issue

 

[The Barbarian]

Your claim: "he didn't tell people to go socialize with lepers."

meaning: Jesus was against people socializing with lepers yes?

Meaning "He didn't tell people to go socialize with lepers."

It would be so much easier if we could argue against things we image people say, instead of things they actually say. But you know, reality again.

You do this all the time: make some kind of vague affirmative claim,

It's a very plain and direct affirmative claim. You just would have preferred that I make a different claim. We all get it.

 

[Dale]

Jesus chose to touch this man --the Messiah didn't hide in the basement of a cottage out of fear of contracting a disease

Both He and His Disciples ministered to the sick (Luke 17:12, etc.), blessed them, etc. They didn't hide from the world because some health official told them to "socially distance"

Jesus never once put himself below the authority of Rabbis, and we are made clean through Him, not by following some arbitrary edict handed down by unbelievers. Jesus established the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 9:21, Matthew 22:37-40, Mark 12:28-34, etc.) and established "The new and everlasting covenant". Christ demanded we love our neighbors as ourselves, and did not banish the sick from the presence of believers

And in the history of the Christian faith are countless examples where churches, priests, popes, etc. resisted the capricious and arbitrary commands and edicts from tyrants and atheists. The Soviet period is a good example of this.

Merrill: << Jesus chose to touch this man --the Messiah didn't hide in the basement of a cottage out of fear of contracting a disease. >>

This is true. Jesus does not lead from the rear.


Merrill: << Jesus established the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 9:21, Matthew 22:37-40, Mark 12:28-34, etc.) and established "The new and everlasting covenant". >>

What does Galatians 6:2 really say?

Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.
--Galations 6:2 NIV

Refusing to “socially distance” is not carrying each other’s burdens.


Merrill: << Jesus never once put himself below the authority of Rabbis ... >>

Was Jesus wrong to tell the leper to show himself to the priest?

 

[Merrill]

Merrill: << Jesus chose to touch this man --the Messiah didn't hide in the basement of a cottage out of fear of contracting a disease. >>

This is true. Jesus does not lead from the rear.


Merrill: << Jesus established the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 9:21, Matthew 22:37-40, Mark 12:28-34, etc.) and established "The new and everlasting covenant". >>

What does Galatians 6:2 really say?

Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.
--Galations 6:2 NIV

Refusing to “socially distance” is not carrying each other’s burdens.


Merrill: << Jesus never once put himself below the authority of Rabbis ... >>

Was Jesus wrong to tell the leper to show himself to the priest?

Let's unpack the real claim that is being made here

1. You assert that Jesus upheld the religious laws regarding lepers
2. You assert that Jesus recognized the authority of the priest in this matter

and I am claiming:

1. If Jesus was truly upholding the "law" in regards to lepers, He and His followers would not be interacting with, and ministering to lepers.
2. Jesus telling the man to present himself to the priest is not a demonstration of Jesus' deferral of authority to the priest.
3. There is a distinction between Christ's Law and the laws of the OT (and this has always been debated, but it is where I stand on the issue)
4. There is no evidence in the NT that Jesus admonished people for socializing with lepers, that He cast the lepers out of society and the religious community.

 

[Dale]

On a related-note, the biggest issue facing the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment, are situations where the government (either local, state, or federal) can infringe upon religious liberty in certain circumstances

I will argue that precedent set forth in previous decades essentially nullifies the free-exercise clause --which is a big problem

During the pandemic, states reacted with various laws, orders, and statutes designed to limit religious gatherings, or close all churches. Maryland explicitly ordered churches to close, while states like Texas made a distinction between "essential" and "non-essential" services, and ultimately declared churches essential, thus giving them some ability to operate. Nevertheless, churches nationwide were shuttered in early 2020

The justification for these actions were based on some SCOTUS rulings in previous decades, and specifically the statement by the court "Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

this idea of a neutral law that applies evenly can supersede the free-exercise clause is highly problematic

another avenue state authorities took was declaring emergency action in order to free themselves from Constitutional requirements

both of these justifications are legally wrong, based on:

1. The supremacy clause of the Constitution (Article VI). A state cannot arbitrarily pass a law that infringes om the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.

2. There is no concept of neutrality in the Bill of Rights. A state cannot pass a law that removes the right to trial for all citizens of Maryland, based on some frivolous foundation, and declare that it is a valid law because it applies to everyone --that is complete nonsense.

3. A state emergency is not a national emergency --and even though a national emergency was declared during the early days of the pandemic, the president did not suspend the Constitution and assume emergency powers. A state cannot declare an emergency and circumvent the Constitution (see #1)

Either the First Amendment means what it says, or it doesn't. If a virus with a 99% survival rate can lead to actions by states that circumvent the free-exercise clause, states effectively shutter houses of worship for virtually any reason, and at any time

Merrill: “If a virus with a 99% survival rate can lead to actions by states that circumvent the free-exercise clause, states effectively shutter houses of worship for virtually any reason, and at any time.”


Would you take responsibility for killing 1% of the population? I wouldn’t.

The population of the USA as of 2024 is estimated at 341,714,237.

So, 1% of the population is 3.4 million people. Is that an insignificant number?


It is also true that many of those who have Covid and recover have lasting effects. According to the Mayo Clinic: “Among people age 65 and older, 1 in 4 has at least one medical condition that might be due to COVID-19.” Further:


<< What are the symptoms of post-COVID-19 syndrome?

The most commonly reported symptoms of post-COVID-19 syndrome include:

• Fatigue
• Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental effort
• Fever
• Lung (respiratory) symptoms, including difficulty breathing or shortness of breath and cough

Other possible symptoms include:

• Neurological symptoms or mental health conditions, including difficulty thinking or concentrating, headache, sleep problems, dizziness when you stand, pins-and-needles feeling, loss of smell or taste, and depression or anxiety
• Joint or muscle pain
• Heart symptoms or conditions, including chest pain and fast or pounding heartbeat
• Digestive symptoms, including diarrhea and stomach pain
• Blood clots and blood vessel (vascular) issues, including a blood clot that travels to the lungs from deep veins in the legs and blocks blood flow to the lungs (pulmonary embolism)

Other symptoms, such as a rash and changes in the menstrual cycle >>



Source on Covid
COVID-19: Long-term effects

 

[PloverWing]

In the example of the Catholic Church, its parishioners and votaries firmly maintain that one must have access to the sacraments (Communion, Confession, Baptism, Last Rites, etc.) --these things cannot be done over Zoom calls, and the physical presence of worshippers is necessary for Mass, etc. By shuttering these churches and denying Catholics the ability to worship and gain access to these sacraments, the state was demonstrably, and clearly, violating the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment

Didn't your bishop take any action in March 2020? Mine did. He acted quickly, telling parishes to stop gathering in person, and appointing a diocesan committee of experts to guide our COVID policy. Our bishop acted before the governor did; he didn't wait for the state to act. As precious as sacramental worship is to us (and never underestimate the sacrifice we made in 2020), we had a moral duty to care for the health of the community that surrounded us.

 

[Merrill]

Merrill: “If a virus with a 99% survival rate can lead to actions by states that circumvent the free-exercise clause, states effectively shutter houses of worship for virtually any reason, and at any time.”


Would you take responsibility for killing 1% of the population? I wouldn’t.

The population of the USA as of 2024 is estimated at 341,714,237.

So, 1% of the population is 3.4 million people. Is that an insignificant number?


It is also true that many of those who have Covid and recover have lasting effects. According to the Mayo Clinic: “Among people age 65 and older, 1 in 4 has at least one medical condition that might be due to COVID-19.” Further:


<< What are the symptoms of post-COVID-19 syndrome?

The most commonly reported symptoms of post-COVID-19 syndrome include:

• Fatigue
• Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental effort
• Fever
• Lung (respiratory) symptoms, including difficulty breathing or shortness of breath and cough

Other possible symptoms include:

• Neurological symptoms or mental health conditions, including difficulty thinking or concentrating, headache, sleep problems, dizziness when you stand, pins-and-needles feeling, loss of smell or taste, and depression or anxiety
• Joint or muscle pain
• Heart symptoms or conditions, including chest pain and fast or pounding heartbeat
• Digestive symptoms, including diarrhea and stomach pain
• Blood clots and blood vessel (vascular) issues, including a blood clot that travels to the lungs from deep veins in the legs and blocks blood flow to the lungs (pulmonary embolism)

Other symptoms, such as a rash and changes in the menstrual cycle >>



Source on Covid
COVID-19: Long-term effects

The Infection-Fatality Rate of COVID-19 is actually well below 1%, and young people were not at serious risk

Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly population - PMC

The largest burden of COVID-19 is carried by the elderly, and persons living in nursing homes are particularly vulnerable. However, 94% of the global population is younger than 70 years and 86% is younger than 60 years. The objective of this study ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The long-term effects of the virus in a small minority of individuals is still being studied, and the initial papers have been revised.

No one "takes responsibility" for what a virus, which is already in the population, does. We respond in the best way we can, and the US was a case study on how NOT to respond to a virus like this. Bowing to pressure from the political left, state governments resorted to lockdowns, even though

1. There was absolutely no empirical science or historical data that indicated such an approach would work for a virus that was already in the population. We were simply copying what China was doing
2. The largest meta-study on lockdowns concluded that they were largely ineffective, and did lots of damage to the medical systems and economies where they were used Johns Hopkins working paper says COVID-19 lockdowns not worth it, sparks fierce debate
3. Even the 6-foot distancing rule wasn't based on sound science. It came from a doctor's letter in the 19th century.
4. Masks were of little benefit, and the Cochrane meta-study concluded "The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks." (and there are many other studies that show N95 masks do very little to stop airborne viruses--doctors have known this for decades)

When looking at the response to COVID-19, we also have to consider how lockdowns, diminished access to medical care and tests, shuttered schools, closed businesses, etc. impacted the population. We know that all of this lead to

hundreds of thousands of deaths from preventable diseases
record suicide rates in the population, especially among young people
millions of jobs lost and hundreds of thousands of business closures
huge learning loss among kids, and record drop-out rates

so this narrative that COVID mitigation efforts had zero consequence elsewhere is just false and downright ignorant

Now that doesn't mean we don't do anything when a pandemic hits. Sweden had the correct approach, which was

a) isolate and protect the elderly and vulnerable
b) encourage the population to limit social gatherings and wash their hands
c) work to develop treatments and vaccines

the pandemic response was the worst public policy disaster in US history, and was a consequence of listening to hysterical left-wing officials and activists

 

[Merrill]

Didn't your bishop take any action in March 2020? Mine did. He acted quickly, telling parishes to stop gathering in person, and appointing a diocesan committee of experts to guide our COVID policy. Our bishop acted before the governor did; he didn't wait for the state to act. As precious as sacramental worship is to us (and never underestimate the sacrifice we made in 2020), we had a moral duty to care for the health of the community that surrounded us.

I am in the EFCA, so we don't have a hierarchy like that

there is a difference between a Bishop ordering a church to temporarily close, while coming up with work-arounds, and a state official ordering a church closed.

Likewise, I am not sure about the policy for the Episcopal Church, but Catholic canon-law says

"Can. 918 It is highly recommended that the faithful receive holy communion during the eucharistic celebration itself. It is to be administered outside the Mass, however, to those who request it for a just cause, with the liturgical rites being observed."

As far as I know, sacraments like Communion, Baptism, etc. cannot be done over Zoom calls.

 

[Dale]

On a related-note, the biggest issue facing the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment, are situations where the government (either local, state, or federal) can infringe upon religious liberty in certain circumstances

I will argue that precedent set forth in previous decades essentially nullifies the free-exercise clause --which is a big problem

During the pandemic, states reacted with various laws, orders, and statutes designed to limit religious gatherings, or close all churches. Maryland explicitly ordered churches to close, while states like Texas made a distinction between "essential" and "non-essential" services, and ultimately declared churches essential, thus giving them some ability to operate. Nevertheless, churches nationwide were shuttered in early 2020

The justification for these actions were based on some SCOTUS rulings in previous decades, and specifically the statement by the court "Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

this idea of a neutral law that applies evenly can supersede the free-exercise clause is highly problematic

another avenue state authorities took was declaring emergency action in order to free themselves from Constitutional requirements

both of these justifications are legally wrong, based on:

1. The supremacy clause of the Constitution (Article VI). A state cannot arbitrarily pass a law that infringes om the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.

2. There is no concept of neutrality in the Bill of Rights. A state cannot pass a law that removes the right to trial for all citizens of Maryland, based on some frivolous foundation, and declare that it is a valid law because it applies to everyone --that is complete nonsense.

3. A state emergency is not a national emergency --and even though a national emergency was declared during the early days of the pandemic, the president did not suspend the Constitution and assume emergency powers. A state cannot declare an emergency and circumvent the Constitution (see #1)

Either the First Amendment means what it says, or it doesn't. If a virus with a 99% survival rate can lead to actions by states that circumvent the free-exercise clause, states effectively shutter houses of worship for virtually any reason, and at any time

One thing I notice about your comments in post #58 is that you don’t explain why reactionary Christians are against the Covid vaccine. You are against the churches being closed and the vaccine made it possible to re-open them, yet many ultra-conservative Christians seem to think that the vaccine is a vile conspiracy.

My local paper ran a column by Michael Reagan where he brags that he, along with his children and grandchildren, have not been vaccinated. Apparently they prefer to spread disease.

It seems to me that Christians should pitch in and get vaccinated for their own good as well as the common good.

 

[Dale]

The Infection-Fatality Rate of COVID-19 is actually well below 1%, and young people were not at serious risk

Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly population - PMC

The largest burden of COVID-19 is carried by the elderly, and persons living in nursing homes are particularly vulnerable. However, 94% of the global population is younger than 70 years and 86% is younger than 60 years. The objective of this study ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The long-term effects of the virus in a small minority of individuals is still being studied, and the initial papers have been revised.

No one "takes responsibility" for what a virus, which is already in the population, does. We respond in the best way we can, and the US was a case study on how NOT to respond to a virus like this. Bowing to pressure from the political left, state governments resorted to lockdowns, even though

1. There was absolutely no empirical science or historical data that indicated such an approach would work for a virus that was already in the population. We were simply copying what China was doing
2. The largest meta-study on lockdowns concluded that they were largely ineffective, and did lots of damage to the medical systems and economies where they were used Johns Hopkins working paper says COVID-19 lockdowns not worth it, sparks fierce debate
3. Even the 6-foot distancing rule wasn't based on sound science. It came from a doctor's letter in the 19th century.
4. Masks were of little benefit, and the Cochrane meta-study concluded "The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks." (and there are many other studies that show N95 masks do very little to stop airborne viruses--doctors have known this for decades)

When looking at the response to COVID-19, we also have to consider how lockdowns, diminished access to medical care and tests, shuttered schools, closed businesses, etc. impacted the population. We know that all of this lead to

hundreds of thousands of deaths from preventable diseases
record suicide rates in the population, especially among young people
millions of jobs lost and hundreds of thousands of business closures
huge learning loss among kids, and record drop-out rates

so this narrative that COVID mitigation efforts had zero consequence elsewhere is just false and downright ignorant

Now that doesn't mean we don't do anything when a pandemic hits. Sweden had the correct approach, which was

a) isolate and protect the elderly and vulnerable
b) encourage the population to limit social gatherings and wash their hands
c) work to develop treatments and vaccines

the pandemic response was the worst public policy disaster in US history, and was a consequence of listening to hysterical left-wing officials and activists

Merrill: “The Infection-Fatality Rate of COVID-19 is actually well below 1%, and young people were not at serious risk”


Do you know more about disease than the Mayo Clinic?

Merrill: “a virus, which is already in the population”

You use this phrase several times. A virus being “already in the population” is not a meaningful concept. People have been dying of diseases “already in the population” for thousands of years.

Merrill: “3. Even the 6-foot distancing rule wasn't based on sound science. It came from a doctor's letter in the 19th century.”

If you got that idea from a news program, stop watching it. The following story is from the website of Scientific American.

COVID’s Six-Foot Rule Made Scientific Sense at the Time​

Attacks on Fauci Over Social Distancing and Masking Ignore the Science of Viral Spread

 

[Merrill]

Merrill: “The Infection-Fatality Rate of COVID-19 is actually well below 1%, and young people were not at serious risk”


Do you know more about disease than the Mayo Clinic?

Merrill: “a virus, which is already in the population”

You use this phrase several times. A virus being “already in the population” is not a meaningful concept. People have been dying of diseases “already in the population” for thousands of years.

Merrill: “3. Even the 6-foot distancing rule wasn't based on sound science. It came from a doctor's letter in the 19th century.”

If you got that idea from a news program, stop watching it. The following story is from the website of Scientific American.

COVID’s Six-Foot Rule Made Scientific Sense at the Time​

Attacks on Fauci Over Social Distancing and Masking Ignore the Science of Viral Spread

I will tackle both your responses in this one:

"Do you know more about the virus than the Mayo Clinic"? --when did I say I did? My data comes from peer-reviewed studies on the Infection-Fatality Rate of the disease. For instance, a NIH study concluded

"Across 51 locations, the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%)" and we have to consider that this was for all age groups, with people aged 80 and above with a fatality rate many times greater than younger people--this affects the average. People under 30 were at very little risk from the virus, and a British study stated "COVID-19 deaths remain extremely rare in CYP" (Children and Young People)

Closing schools across the country because of a disease that has a .00087% chance of killing a young person, and less than a 1% chance of them needing medical care, is not rational policy. Instead, officials and politicians listened to hysterical and ignorant activists

"A virus being “already in the population” is not a meaningful concept." It is absolutely a meaningful concept in regards to lockdown policy. If a virus escapes from a lab, but has not yet infiltrated the general population, you quarantine and contain it. If the virus is already everywhere, no amount of "locking-down" is going to work. There were absolutely no studies or historical data to back that approach up.

The COVID 6-foot distancing rule was arbitrary and not based on any real science. It never "made sense"

CDC’s Six-Foot Social Distancing Rule Was ‘Arbitrary’, Says Former FDA Commissioner

It showed a “lack of rigor” behind the agency’s decisions, he said.

www.forbes.com

The problem with the COVID response was that it permanently lowered the public's confidence in health officials and health policy. The systematic lying and disinformation that came out of the MSM and certain health officials (all of which was politically and ideologically-motivated) outraged the public and caused massive damage to the economy and public health. Some of the disinformation included:

1. Fauci and the MSM claiming repeatedly in 2021 that vaccination offered 100% protection against getting and spreading the virus. There was absolutely no science to back up that claim, and even the drug companies said otherwise. Some studies suggested that vaccinated people were less likely to spread the virus, but others concluded otherwise:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-30992100768-4/fulltext

"A recent investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of an outbreak of COVID-19 in a prison in Texas showed the equal presence of infectious virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Similarly, researchers in California observed no major differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx, even in those with proven asymptomatic infection"

Data from the field showed the virus was spreading freely among vaccinated populations, including ones that were 100% vaccinated and boosted. So this partisan talking point "Apparently they [people who don't want to get vaccinated] prefer to spread disease." is complete nonsense.

2. The 6-foot distancing rule nonsense

3. That it was impossible the virus emerged from the WIV lab, and that such claims were "conspiracy theories". We now know that there was a massive cover-up, a coordinated effort by ECHO Health, and others, to exonerate the CCP, and deceive the public. The FBI has said the lab leak is likely, the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory has suggested a lab-leak is a possible scenario.

I could go on and on ...

---

As far as people refusing to get vaccinated, I think we need to consider the safety of the vaccines. I got the initial vaccination because I had to. I also know two psychologists, aged 42 and 44 who got the vaccines and like 3 boosters. One died last year from cancer (went into the hospital and never came out) and the other was just diagnosed with lymphoma. There has been a large increase in rare and unusual cancers among people under 50 since 2021 --doesn't mean the vaccines are to blame, but it makes me very worried.

would you like to contract COVID and have a .003% chance of dying, or get a rare cancer and have a 80% chance of dying?