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)

  


[i] Neufeld, Hank. Creeks and Crises: then and now. Altona: One Printers Way, 2022 p. 66

[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

Popular posts from this blog

Democracy or bust

-
Image
  Politics . You can tell how people relate to this word by the way they use it. “I’m not much interested in politics,” for instance, equates it with the day-to-day news about our current government, elections, party dynamics, etc. A narrow definition.                By whatever word we use, it’s clear that the setting and enforcing of the principles under which we form community—and function as community—existed before the word was coined. In families, in schools, in workplaces, on the roads, in the economy, the making and respecting of agreed-to behavioural expectations in a community is the necessary defense against chaos.                How behavioural expectations come to be, how they are altered, how they are enforced … and most importantly by whose authority … is fundamental. The “benevolent dictator” model has a long history: give...
Read more

Do I dare eat a peach?

-
Image
  All the talk of Joe Biden’s unfitness for the position of president of the USA must have others of his age—80 plus—wondering about their own fitness. Most of us octogenarians are well aware of our physical limitations, I think, but mentally? How can I know, for instance, if the lines I’m writing are logically sound, or if they fall somewhere between inane and gibberish? How can I know if my diminished capacity can be trusted to make such a judgment? And what if my friends are too kind to tell me when to close my laptop? Hearing an aging loved one tell the same stories to the same people every day has the able-minded nodding knowingly and cluckingly (that’s a word, isn’t it?). We’re obviously too kind and too hip not to know that people experiencing obvious dementia deserve to be “handled with care,” and we’ve devised places and strategies to preserve for them whatever dignity is still possible. But it’s not dissimilar from the pain-relieving, ointment applying, chair-exercisin...
Read more

Stories We Live By

-
Image
  David Brooks, writer, philosopher and journalist, said in a recent speech to the Aspen Ideas gathering that the current divisive, belligerent mood among the people of earth can’t be attributed to our real-life situations. We have space, food, water, shelter, healthcare enough for everyone, and more. We don’t fight because we need to, he said, but because we carry stories in our heads to which we respond. It's clear that he doesn’t mean story in the same way I meant it when I published a collection of short stories , but there’s something to be gained in connecting the two, particularly when behaviour is guided by, for instance, The Holy Bible , or the Quran , each telling a story by which adherents understand life and by which their actions are governed. Scientists, as a rule, act according to a very different story of life, their exploration guided very much by the saga of evolving nature and the incontrovertible principles that govern all things. Our stories —I think Broo...
Read more