Engage, talk, reconcile
Recent events surrounding pandemic mandates have placed a burden for rethinking the role of individual autonomy in a democratic state on us all. The temptation to go yes or no on whether special restrictions can legitimately be placed on persons not choosing vaccination is a significant discussion to be had; so far no substantial debate on the matter has taken place, at least not to my knowledge.
I have always known about the exemption from military
service that Mennonites had to have guaranteed to them before emigrating to Russia,
Prussia, Canada, USA, Mexico and Paraguay. In his memoir, friend Hank Neufeld
writes about the Morden Mennonite Brethren Church’s response to the draft during
WWII. In a similar response to churches elsewhere, some of the church members
joined outright, some joined the medical corps and some submitted to being
placed on farms or in other voluntary service programs to keep the Canadian
economy going while so many men were off to war. But then there was a militant
group (pardon the pun) who insisted that alternate service supported the
regime, not God’s will, and risked jail by refusing all cooperation with the
war effort.[i]
The principle of church/state separation is fine, but Christian
communities have always had to make their way in a political culture that’s
secular, that passes laws with economics, not Jesus Christ, providing their primary
motivation.
“Conscientious Objection to Military Service,” exemption on
religious faith grounds, has existed for as long as there were Anabaptist,
Quakers, Jehovah’s Witnesses or Doukhobor
believers. The right to refuse vaccination isn’t primarily based on religious
faith, but there’s nothing to say that there couldn’t be non-faith support for
conscientious objection, possibly a conviction on environmental issues, for
instance. In fact, civil disobedience and protest have often been the opening
salvos of needed change.
The political rights of Canadians are enunciated in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms that forms part of our constitution, and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a UN human
rights declaration to which Canada is a signatory. The CCRF guarantees a right
to assembly and freedom of thought and expression, both supporting the right to
protest in groups in public places. The ICCPR lists an
exception that allows the restriction of the right of assembly, however, “if it
is necessary ‘in a democratic society in the interests of national security or
public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others." (Articles 20 and 21)
Does refusing to bear arms in wartime infringe on national
security or public safety? Does assembling en masse on public streets and
border crossings infringe on “the rights and freedoms of others?” These are
important questions and the human rights documents have the answers, but when
actual situations arise, often under unique circumstances and with no
precedents, judgment is still called for. What are the boundaries of “public
order?” for instance. A demonstration in front of a post office may be
peaceful, but if it hinders people from entering, does it cross a “public
order” exception? And what does it mean to say an assembly loses its right to
take place for “the protection of public health or morals?” Is
closing a strip club by city council a “protection of public morals?” Do we
even share a common morality, or do we know when and why the protection of physical
health becomes detrimental to mental and/or social health?
In the current pandemic, governments are obligated to lead
in defense of the public’s health. In Canada, taking the vaccine is optional,
but strongly advised by governments. Citizens are free to choose. In defense of
public health, the requirement that masks be worn in public and the urging to vaccinate
are clearly attempts by government to protect public health, as are the limits
to numbers attending in churches, sports events, etc. Nowhere is it written
that governments’ actions relative to the exceptions to freedom of assembly
will not have consequences for individual citizens. People who defied the draft
knew what the consequences of their choice would be, even as they made that
choice. In both cases, the outcomes can be heartbreaking, devastating and sad.
So what does this say to us who have been grateful for
government guidelines, have followed those recommendations and rules and are
now being challenged on the fundamental strategy for reducing the effects of
the COVID-19 virus? We know that the defiance of health mandates is a push by a
minority of citizens, as was defiance of the draft. As Christians, we are no
different from the rest of the population in choosing to be for or against
mandates or military service, but as those to whom Christ has handed the task
of reconciliation, stopping at a “them” vs. “us” position is not enough. Neither
will railing back at those screaming at us have a reconciliatory effect. Engagement
(remember Pastor Rachel’s superb sermon on the Jesus and the Samaritan woman at-the-well
encounter?) is probably the only effective way to bring about a shared view of
our common aspirations, to begin to trust each other after the remarkable split
of the past year and month.
One suggestion: What if Eigenheim Mennonite Church were to gather
resources through “Go Fund Me,” or a similar platform, to augment its
benevolent budget. People in desperate states could apply for modest assistance.
Wouldn’t it be a tangible way to demonstrate that we’re not bound to give only
to those we consider worthy, but that, as Shakespeare’s Hamlet famously said, “God’s
bodykins,[ii]
man, [don’t treat others according to what they deserve, but] much better. Use
every man according to [what he deserves] and [we’d all get a good whipping].
Use them [according] to your own honor and dignity. The less they deserve, the
more merit is in your [generosity].” (Ham:IIii)
[ii] God’s bodykins is an archaic, mild curse, probably equivalent to Gee Whiz, or Gosh darn, both of which reference the deity for emphasis.
Comments
Post a Comment