Skip to main content

I’m Thrilled To Be Vaccinated

 I have a loose acquaintance who has a frame on her Facebook profile picture that says, “I don’t care that you are vaccinated.” There have been plenty of reactionary spoofs like this, related to COVID. I think people still think that it’s OK to play politics with the virus, or that if there are any undeniably political elements to safety and care in a COVID world, that opposition is morally neutral or good.

It’s an act of charity, to protect yourself. It’s an act of charity to protect others. I hope that “political” isn’t just “anything I don’t happen to like,” and that it’s not consequently synonymous with “social.” If there is no “we,” eventually, there is no “I.”

I won’t say that every vaccine refusal is illegitimate, obviously. Some of us literally cannot safely take it. But most are. And the facts are that this thing mutates, the more people it infects. With more mutations brings the possibility and even likelihood of greater lethality.

If some people might rightly argue that there has been paranoia about the virus, that presupposes another measure of legitimate concern. If you can’t identify an expression of legitimate concern—especially greater than your own—you have no basis to say that someone else is fearmongering.

I’ll be up front, and say that I don’t think forced vaccination would be illegitimate for the government to do. It may not be urgently necessary right now, but “unnecessary” and “illegitimate” are not synonymous. I do not prize my individual freedom over the good of others. You may not assume I don’t value my freedom at all. It’s this inability to see the limits of freedom that now threatens freedom. At least here on Earth, there is no freedom in death.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un