thestream--2020-04-16--This Week at War on Coronavirus: Hope and Faith

Making masks .
Transporting supplies .
Administering tests .
Delivering food .
Shielding the vulnerable .
Caring for the sick .
Bringing out the dead .
There are no limits to the scope of sacrifices being made by brave U.S. troops and military families during the ongoing war on coronavirus .
Since February 1 , the military community has been working under a “ stop movement ” order from the Pentagon that was set to end on May 11 .
On Thursday , Defense Secretary Mark Esper said that while the order may be extended to stop the spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials are keenly aware of the strain on military families , especially those that remain separated during a global crisis .
“ We ’ re very conscious of the impact on the families , ” Secretary Esper said on Thursday morning ’ s TODAY Show .
“ Look , they ’ ve borne the hardship of this just as much as the service member has.
” With more than 30,000 troops at war with the virus in the National Guard alone , leaders are trying to keep morale high amid an unprecedented period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to change us , and change us maybe forever , ” Gen. Joseph Lengyel , Chief of the National Guard Bureau , told his troops earlier this week .
“ But we need to do the careful things like wear a face mask when you ’ re going to be within six feet of another person and do all the things we need to do prevent the spread of this disease .
Thanks for what you ’ re doing.
” As I wrote last week , it ’ s impossible to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the military ’ s coronavirus response .
The best we can do is show snapshots , like the incredible work of the Pennsylvania National Guard in delivering more than 225,000 meals to those in need and the Maryland National Guard ’ s mobilization to defend virus-vulnerable nursing homes .
Like churches and charity organizations , the military is doing God ’ s work in ensuring the hungry are fed and the elderly are kept safe .
We are so grateful to these American heroes for stepping up to save so many innocent lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our military are doing these amazing things at great risk to their own health .
As of Wednesday afternoon , the Pentagon had reported more than 5,000 coronavirus cases in its ranks , with more than half being U.S. service members , according to the Military Times .
The USS Theodore Roosevelt has become a symbol of the staggering toll COVID-19 is taking on the military community .
A U.S. Navy sailor who had been aboard the Guam-docked ship tragically passed away earlier this week .
The sailor , whose identity has not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second U.S. service member to die of the coronavirus .
New Jersey National Guard Capt .
Douglas Hickock , who succumbed to the disease in March , was the first .
As we pray for the loved ones of these fallen heroes , let us also ask God to heal the two USS Theodore Roosevelt sailors in intensive care and the nearly 600 who have tested positive for the virus , according to The Hill .
We are praying for fast and full recoveries for each of these magnificent men and women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
Healing is possible .
After 49 painstaking days in isolation , the first known U.S. service member to test positive for COVID-19 has made a full recovery in South Korea , according to the Army Times .
We thank God for this miracle .
I was also struck by the below photo of a Massachusetts National Guard chaplain praying with his troops before a recent coronavirus-related mission .
It reminded me of images of chaplains holding similar prayer sessions before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq .
If these U.S. service members can maintain hope and faith during these trying times , so can we .
Guided by our love of God , our country and each other , America can and will win this war .
Please join The Stream in praying for the heroes on the front lines .
Tom Sileo is a contributing senior editor of The Stream .
He is co-author of 8 Seconds of Courage , Brothers Forever , Fire in My Eyes and the forthcoming Three Wise Men .
Follow Tom on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Streamdotorg .

Making masks. Transporting supplies. Administering tests. Delivering food. Shielding the vulnerable. Caring for the sick. Bringing out the dead. There are no limits to the scope of sacrifices being made by brave U.S. troops and military families during the ongoing war on coronavirus.
Since February 1, the military community has been working under a “stop movement” order from the Pentagon that was set to end on May 11. On Thursday, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said that while the order may be extended to stop the spread of COVID-19, he and other top military officials are keenly aware of the strain on military families, especially those that remain separated during a global crisis.
“We’re very conscious of the impact on the families,” Secretary Esper said on Thursday morning’s TODAY Show. “Look, they’ve borne the hardship of this just as much as the service member has.”
With more than 30,000 troops at war with the virus in the National Guard alone, leaders are trying to keep morale high amid an unprecedented period of upheaval and risk.
From @ChiefNGB: All of us in the #NationalGuard offer our condolences to every American who has lost a loved one to COVID-19. Tonight, about 30,000 of us continue to fight the coronavirus, supporting the whole-of-nation response to the pandemic. #InThisTogether pic.twitter.com/RCJe6rrDxB — National Guard (@USNationalGuard) April 15, 2020
“This is going to change us, and change us maybe forever,” Gen. Joseph Lengyel, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, told his troops earlier this week. “But we need to do the careful things like wear a face mask when you’re going to be within six feet of another person and do all the things we need to do prevent the spread of this disease. Thanks for what you’re doing.”
As I wrote last week, it’s impossible to adequately summarize the many different facets of the military’s coronavirus response. The best we can do is show snapshots, like the incredible work of the Pennsylvania National Guard in delivering more than 225,000 meals to those in need and the Maryland National Guard’s mobilization to defend virus-vulnerable nursing homes.
As of April 15, 2020, the @PANationalGuard has delivered 225,228 meals and traveled over 12,100 miles working with @PAHumanServices to support communities across the state. #InThisTogether #COVID19 pic.twitter.com/U02Qbq279m — National Guard (@USNationalGuard) April 16, 2020
To protect the most vulnerable, the @MDNG is working with the state health department to help safeguard people at nursing homes across the state. #InThisTogether https://t.co/bygHR3X1e1 — National Guard (@USNationalGuard) April 16, 2020
Like churches and charity organizations, the military is doing God’s work in ensuring the hungry are fed and the elderly are kept safe. We are so grateful to these American heroes for stepping up to save so many innocent lives.
The valiant men and women of our military are doing these amazing things at great risk to their own health. As of Wednesday afternoon, the Pentagon had reported more than 5,000 coronavirus cases in its ranks, with more than half being U.S. service members, according to the Military Times.
The USS Theodore Roosevelt has become a symbol of the staggering toll COVID-19 is taking on the military community. A U.S. Navy sailor who had been aboard the Guam-docked ship tragically passed away earlier this week.
After this piece was originally published, the U.S. Navy identified the sailor, who is the second U.S. service member to die of COVID-19, as Chief Petty Officer Charles Thacker. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, the 41-year-old sailor leaves behind a wife who also serves in the Navy.
Navy identifies Theodore Roosevelt sailor who died of complications from COVID-19 https://t.co/5Cwm37zasD pic.twitter.com/32zhHm9fwI — San Diego Union-Tribune (@sdut) April 16, 2020
As we pray for the loved ones of the first and second U.S. service members to die of coronavirus, let us also ask God to heal the USS Theodore Roosevelt sailors in intensive care and the nearly 600 who have tested positive for the virus, according to The Hill. We are praying for fast and full recoveries for each of these magnificent men and women.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Healing is possible. After 49 painstaking days in isolation, the first known U.S. service member to test positive for COVID-19 has made a full recovery in South Korea, according to the Army Times. We thank God for this miracle.
I was also struck by the below photo of a Massachusetts National Guard chaplain praying with his troops before a recent coronavirus-related mission. It reminded me of images of chaplains holding similar prayer sessions before soldiers went into battle in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Chaplain McGowan, 1-181st Infantry Reg Chaplain, addresses Army & Air Guard troops preparing for a mission fighting Covid-19. McGowan read scripture & talked about the strong caring for the weak & helping the powerless while saying a prayer before they started their mission. pic.twitter.com/I1hjH9Dc7H — Mass. National Guard (@TheNationsFirst) April 12, 2020
If these U.S. service members can maintain hope and faith during these trying times, so can we. Guided by our love of God, our country and each other, America can and will win this war. Please join The Stream in praying for the heroes on the front lines.
CALL TO ACTION: COVID-19 is causing massive disruptions in life. The Stream’s parent organization, LIFE Outreach International is helping send a first wave of help. LIFE’s local Mission Partners are already distributing thousands of surgical masks, gloves and other sanitary supplies to first responders, hospitals and nursing homes. In addition, other partners have focused on distributing as many meals as possible to help those who need food. You can help with these efforts. Click here to donate.
Tom Sileo is a contributing senior editor of The Stream. He is co-author of 8 Seconds of Courage, Brothers Forever, Fire in My Eyes and the forthcoming Three Wise Men. Follow Tom on Twitter @TSileo and The Stream at @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-04-16--Gov. Northam Just Legally Harmed Women in More Ways Than One

While all of Christendom honored the passion and death of Jesus Christ for the redemption of all mankind on Good Friday , Democratic governor Ralph Northam decided to sign into law two legislative acts that will make women and girls in Virginia more vulnerable to predation and physical harm , each in different ways .
Northam , of course , insists his actions will “ make women and families safer.
” He is inexcusably wrong .
I ’ m through being polite .
It is disgusting and offensive to get orders claiming to benefit and protect women from those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objectively , scientifically , rationally .
Northam , like the rest of the elite ruling class that now serves at the pleasure of the gender-identity agenda , wants to force all women and girls to pretend there is no difference between males and females , and to sacrifice their own privacy and safety so that delusional or predatory men can have the rights of women .
The new law , which becomes effective July 1 , 2020 , reads : In plain language , this effectively means there can be no such thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dressing room , shower , locker room , or shelter .
Every public space reserved only for women is officially discriminatory .
Women no longer have the right to separate themselves from men for any reason .
Women no longer have any right to privacy or safety while in a public restroom or a store ’ s dressing room or the showers at the gym or the homeless shelter .
Listen up , Governor , and listen well .
You have no right to force any woman to accept conditions that will place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men while she is in any state of undress , or while she is vulnerable to harm .
You have no right to demand that I swallow my objection to this immoral invasion of privacy .
You have no right to demand that our daughters just get over their discomfort at sharing intimate spaces with strange men .
How dare you legislate such indecency and misogyny ?
How dare you claim to care about women as you dictatorially erase from public existence every space and facility designed to ensure the privacy , safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let me explain it to you in simple terms .
A woman is an adult human female .
There is no male on planet Earth who is now or ever can be a woman .
There is no male in existence who has any “ right ” to occupy and use facilities designated for women and girls .
Your law allows the feelings and claims of men to annihilate the reality of womanhood and the genuine rights of women .
You Can ’ t Protect People From Sex-Based Discrimination and Say Sex Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contradiction and irrational nonsense .
In one sentence it claims to “ Safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of race , color , religion , national origin , sex … gender identity.
” Then it goes on to state , “ The term ‘ gender identity , ’ when used in reference to discrimination in the Code and acts of the General Assembly , means the gender-related identity , appearance , or other gender-related characteristics of an individual , with or without regard to the individual ’ s designated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
How can the law recognize the reality of biological sex as the basis of outlawing unlawful discrimination , and in the next breath claim that biological sex is irrelevant , inadmissible , and essentially meaningless since it is merely “ designated ” at birth ?
How can something be both recognized and protected by law and utterly immaterial at the same time ?
How can the objective reality being protected from discrimination suddenly become the source of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Women and girls are not made up only of feelings and appearances .
We are female — a biological , objective human reality .
Not a costume for a man to put on , or an “ identity ” for a man to claim .
Northam also signed the so-called Reproductive Health Protection Act which wipes out several protections in the law regarding abortion , making women more vulnerable , not more protected .
No longer is it required that abortions be performed by a doctor .
Physician assistants and nurse practitioners will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new law also removes all requirements that women be given the accurate medical explanation of the abortion procedure , with all risks associated .
It removes the requirement that an ultrasound be done prior to the abortion and women offered the option to see that ultrasound .
It eliminates all requirements that abortion clinics must adhere to hospital safety and cleanliness standards .
See for yourself the stricken paragraphs in the law and ask yourself if this protects women or the abortion industry .
Northam and the Democrats think women should not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involves and all the risks thereof .
They believe women should not see the ultrasound images of their babies .
Women should not even be offered the chance to see such an image .
Women do not warrant the care of a doctor , or the safety and sanitary standards of a hospital .
Governor Northam had the gall to boast , “ No more will legislators in Richmond — most of whom are men — be telling women what they should and should not be doing with their bodies.
” The irony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( a man ) are telling the women of Virginia exactly what they must do with their bodies by requiring them to share female-only public spaces and facilities with men who claim to be women .
You ’ ve made every girl and woman in Virginia vulnerable .
You ’ ve left them without recourse or protection .
That makes you a public villain , not a hero .
Jennifer Hartline is a senior contributor to The Stream .
You can follow her at @ jenniehartline .

While all of Christendom honored the passion and death of Jesus Christ for the redemption of all mankind on Good Friday, Democratic governor Ralph Northam decided to sign into law two legislative acts that will make women and girls in Virginia more vulnerable to predation and physical harm, each in different ways. Northam, of course, insists his actions will “make women and families safer.” He is inexcusably wrong.
The Madness That Ate Women
I’m through being polite. It is disgusting and offensive to get orders claiming to benefit and protect women from those who cannot even define “woman” objectively, scientifically, rationally.
Northam, like the rest of the elite ruling class that now serves at the pleasure of the gender-identity agenda, wants to force all women and girls to pretend there is no difference between males and females, and to sacrifice their own privacy and safety so that delusional or predatory men can have the rights of women.
The new law, which becomes effective July 1, 2020, reads:
It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, including the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation, to refuse, withhold from, or deny any individual, or to attempt to refuse, withhold from, or deny any individual, directly or indirectly, any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges made available in any place of public accommodation … to any individual on the basis of … gender identity.
In plain language, this effectively means there can be no such thing as a women’s restroom, dressing room, shower, locker room, or shelter. Every public space reserved only for women is officially discriminatory. Women no longer have the right to separate themselves from men for any reason. Women no longer have any right to privacy or safety while in a public restroom or a store’s dressing room or the showers at the gym or the homeless shelter.
How Dare You, Governor?
Listen up, Governor, and listen well. You have no right to force any woman to accept conditions that will place her in the presence and company of men while she is in any state of undress, or while she is vulnerable to harm. You have no right to demand that I swallow my objection to this immoral invasion of privacy. You have no right to demand that our daughters just get over their discomfort at sharing intimate spaces with strange men. How dare you legislate such indecency and misogyny?
How dare you claim to care about women as you dictatorially erase from public existence every space and facility designed to ensure the privacy, safety, and equal rights of women?
How dare you claim to care about women as you dictatorially erase from public existence every space and facility designed to ensure the privacy, safety, and equal rights of women? Let me explain it to you in simple terms. A woman is an adult human female.
There is no male on planet Earth who is now or ever can be a woman. There is no male in existence who has any “right” to occupy and use facilities designated for women and girls. Your law allows the feelings and claims of men to annihilate the reality of womanhood and the genuine rights of women.
You Can’t Protect People From Sex-Based Discrimination and Say Sex Is Meaningless
Your own law is a ridiculous contradiction and irrational nonsense. In one sentence it claims to “Safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex … gender identity.”
Then it goes on to state, “The term ‘gender identity,’ when used in reference to discrimination in the Code and acts of the General Assembly, means the gender-related identity, appearance, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
How can the law recognize the reality of biological sex as the basis of outlawing unlawful discrimination, and in the next breath claim that biological sex is irrelevant, inadmissible, and essentially meaningless since it is merely “designated” at birth? How can something be both recognized and protected by law and utterly immaterial at the same time? How can the objective reality being protected from discrimination suddenly become the source of discrimination?
This is pure madness. Women and girls are not made up only of feelings and appearances. We are female — a biological, objective human reality. Not a costume for a man to put on, or an “identity” for a man to claim.
Calling Kermit …
Northam also signed the so-called Reproductive Health Protection Act which wipes out several protections in the law regarding abortion, making women more vulnerable, not more protected. No longer is it required that abortions be performed by a doctor. Physician assistants and nurse practitioners will be allowed to perform them.
The new law also removes all requirements that women be given the accurate medical explanation of the abortion procedure, with all risks associated. It removes the requirement that an ultrasound be done prior to the abortion and women offered the option to see that ultrasound. It eliminates all requirements that abortion clinics must adhere to hospital safety and cleanliness standards.
You, Governor, (a man) are telling the women of Virginia exactly what they must do with their bodies by requiring them to share female-only public spaces and facilities with men who claim to be women.
See for yourself the stricken paragraphs in the law and ask yourself if this protects women or the abortion industry.
Northam and the Democrats think women should not be fully informed about what an abortion procedure involves and all the risks thereof. They believe women should not see the ultrasound images of their babies. Women should not even be offered the chance to see such an image. Women do not warrant the care of a doctor, or the safety and sanitary standards of a hospital.
Gosnell is good enough.
Politically Correct Misogyny
Governor Northam had the gall to boast, “No more will legislators in Richmond — most of whom are men — be telling women what they should and should not be doing with their bodies.”
The irony is thick. You, Governor, (a man) are telling the women of Virginia exactly what they must do with their bodies by requiring them to share female-only public spaces and facilities with men who claim to be women. You’ve made every girl and woman in Virginia vulnerable. You’ve left them without recourse or protection. That makes you a public villain, not a hero.
Jennifer Hartline is a senior contributor to The Stream. You can follow her at @jenniehartline.


thestream--2020-04-16--Joy Break: Peace in the Middle of the Storm

When we turn on our televisions or smart phones we are bombarded with news that brings us down .
Where are all the good stories ?
They ’ re still there .
Here ’ s one that we hope will bless you .
A local television station in Chattanooga , Tennessee , was doing a live broadcast Wednesday about a destroyed church when they heard music coming from the top of the pile of rubble .
ABC News NC9 was on the air at what had been First Wesleyan Church on Shallowford Road .
Suddenly , they heard music and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a piano .
The piano somehow survived Sunday ’ s tornado .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
Tracy Coats told NC9 that she plays the piano at her nearby church on Sundays .
When she drove by First Wesleyan Church she realized she had to stop .
“ I came driving by , and I saw the piano and I knew it had more music in it.
” She expressed her sorrow for those who lost everything .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith to get through this hard time .
“ We ’ re not made to carry this kind of load .
It ’ s too much .
Too much for any of us , but when we give that to the Lord , He carries it for us and we can find peace in the middle of the storm.
” Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream .
You can follow her @ NancyFlory3 , and follow The Stream @ Streamdotorg .

When we turn on our televisions or smart phones we are bombarded with news that brings us down. Where are all the good stories? They’re still there. Here’s one that we hope will bless you.
A local television station in Chattanooga, Tennessee, was doing a live broadcast Wednesday about a destroyed church when they heard music coming from the top of the pile of rubble.
ABC News NC9 was on the air at what had been First Wesleyan Church on Shallowford Road. Suddenly, they heard music and looked up to see a woman sitting at a piano. The piano somehow survived Sunday’s tornado.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Tracy Coats told NC9 that she plays the piano at her nearby church on Sundays. When she drove by First Wesleyan Church she realized she had to stop. “I came driving by, and I saw the piano and I knew it had more music in it.” She expressed her sorrow for those who lost everything.
She added that she relies on her faith to get through this hard time. “We’re not made to carry this kind of load. It’s too much. Too much for any of us, but when we give that to the Lord, He carries it for us and we can find peace in the middle of the storm.”
Watch:
Beauty in the middle of so much destruction https://t.co/kRsbtqPf0Z — Josh Roe NC9 (@joshroe) April 15, 2020
Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream. You can follow her @NancyFlory3, and follow The Stream @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-04-16--Thinking Biblically About the Role of Faith Amid Suffering and the Coronavirus

Bishop Gerald Glenn faithfully pastored his flock for many years .
On Sunday , March 22 , 2020 , he spoke to a few dozen souls in congregation , New Deliverance Evangelistic Church in Chesterfield , Virginia : “ I firmly believe that God is larger than this dreaded virus .
You can quote me on that.
” The bishop assured his flock that he would continue to preach “ unless I ’ m in jail or the hospital.
” As he spoke , he was defying Gov .
Ralph S. Northam ’ s March 12 request that public meetings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the outbreak of the coronavirus .
It was announced on April 12 , that Bishop Glenn , 66 , had died from COVID-19 .
( We don ’ t know when he contracted it . )
The bishop ’ s wife , Mother Marcietia Glenn , 65 , has tested positive .
Many are now suffering his loss , including Senator Tim Caine of Virginia , who tweeted : “ My heart sinks as I learn this morning that Bishop Gerald Glenn … died yesterday from COVID-19 .
He was a friend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May all do as much for so many.
” On March 29 , Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne defied lockdown orders and held services at his megachurch , River at Tampa Bay Church , claiming that faith would protect him and all the faithful .
He was arrested after the service .
On Easter Sunday , Howard-Browne preached from his home and said , “ This is not about a virus .
This is about shutting down the gospel of Jesus Christ .
And all these pastors that say , ‘ Well , we should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you don ’ t understand.
” Christian faith is in the news during this pandemic .
What better time to consult the Bible and think theologically about faith and suffering , healing and dying , truth and error ?
How does faith bear on Christian conduct when the world seems to be falling apart ?
The faith of the follower of Jesus should be rooted in the Bible and led by the Holy Spirit , who is the Spirit of Truth ( John 16:13 ) .
The Holy Spirit inspires us in virtue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scripture , since it is God-breathed ( 2 Timothy 3:15-16 ) .
Christian faith is neither the opposite of knowledge nor is it irrational , but rather grounded in God ’ s rational-verbal revelation .
“ Faith comes from hearing the message , and the message is heard through the word about Christ ” ( Romans 10:17 ) .
Thus , every word from every preacher and every word of every book should be tested against the Bible as the final and true authority .
As David wrote , “ Your word is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light on my path ” ( Psalm 119:105 ) .
Sadly , there are shepherds with good hearts who preach bad things .
And there are false shepherds ( see Ezekiel 34 ; 2 Peter 2:1 ) .
Pandemic or not , Scripture assures us that the Creator has not lost control over his good creation .
The divine plan will be accomplished , come what may .
The Apostle Paul assures Christians that their salvation is secure because their loving God “ works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Isaiah speaks the word of God to a troubled people : Thus , our faith is rooted in the character of our sovereign and holy God , who is “ our refuge and strength , an ever-present help in trouble ” ( Psalm 46:1 ) .
Faith in God is what God calls for : “ And without faith it is impossible to please God , because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him ” ( Hebrews 11:6 ) .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can mean the faith — as in the Christian worldview , our theology , or our confession of faith , such as the Apostle ’ s Creed .
So , Paul writes : “ I have fought a good fight , I have finished my course , I have kept the faith ” ( 2 Timothy 4:7 , KJV ) .
Faith can also mean exercising a belief that God will do something in a particular situation .
When Paul was preaching in Lystra , he saw a man who had never walked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paul looked directly at him , saw that he had faith to be healed and called out , ‘ Stand up on your feet !
’ At that , the man jumped up and began to walk ” ( Acts 14:9-10 ) .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
Jesus also responded to a number of people like this .
When Jesus saw his faith , he said to the paralyzed man , “ Son , your sins are forgiven.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the man of his infirmity to demonstrate that he had the authority of forgive sins ( Mark 2:5-12 ) .
Since God can heal and can supernaturally protect us , should every follower of Jesus have faith that he or she can supernaturally resist a deadly virus or pray that someone will supernaturally recover from it ?
The answer is : yes and no .
Yes , God can , and does , protect and heal people today .
Jesus , who was raised from the dead , can touch people today as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened and still happen , as Lee Strobel argues convincingly in The Case for Miracles .
As Francis Schaeffer wrote in True Spirituality , we live in a “ supernatural universe.
” The eyes of faith see more than the material world and its limits .
Paul teaches that some have special gifts for faith and for healing that other Christians do not possess ( see 1 Corinthians 12:1-11 ) .
Some believers have more faith for healing and miracles than I do .
Still , however much faith we have , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” We pray , as best we understand , in accordance with his teachings and for the furtherance of his Kingdom ( Matthew 6:33 ) .
Faith is not presumption , however .
When we can avoid danger to our health or that of others through natural means , we must do so for the sake of love .
Paul told Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach problems ( 1 Timothy 5:23 ) .
When the Devil was tempting Jesus in the wilderness , he bid Jesus to throw himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God ’ s angels would catch him .
He even quoted Psalm 91 to make his point !
But “ Jesus replied , ‘ It is also written : ‘ Do not put the Lord your God to the test ’ ” ( Matthew 4:5-7 ; see Deuteronomy 6:16 ) .
Failing to take precautions against this deadly virus is just like foolishly jumping off the temple .
In a pandemic , it is wise to minimize and mitigate the chance of infection through public health measures .
Since we are under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it compels us to sin ) , we ought to follow its restrictions in a crisis ( Romans 13:1-7 ) .
When the state forbids public meetings in general , it is not trying to “ shut down the Gospel of Jesus Christ , ” as Howard-Browne said .
It is trying to save lives , and we as Christian citizens should comply since we ought to seek the good of our cities ( see Jeremiah 29:7 ; Matthew 5:13-16 ) .
Faith is no panacea for a pandemic .
Nor is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise in biblical faith .
Faith is , rather , a tough and gritty way to live and to die — to hope and be blessed and to hope and be disappointed in this groaning world ( see Romans 8:16-24 ) .
But whatever happens , we are in God ’ s hands and we should seek to please our Lord through our faith in what he has revealed in the Bible .
Douglas Groothuis is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary where he heads the apologetics and ethics masters degree program .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including Christian Apologetics : A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith .

Bishop Gerald Glenn faithfully pastored his flock for many years. On Sunday, March 22, 2020, he spoke to a few dozen souls in congregation, New Deliverance Evangelistic Church in Chesterfield, Virginia: “I firmly believe that God is larger than this dreaded virus. You can quote me on that.”
The bishop assured his flock that he would continue to preach “unless I’m in jail or the hospital.” As he spoke, he was defying Gov. Ralph S. Northam’s March 12 request that public meetings be no larger than ten people due to the outbreak of the coronavirus.
It was announced on April 12, that Bishop Glenn, 66, had died from COVID-19. (We don’t know when he contracted it.) The bishop’s wife, Mother Marcietia Glenn, 65, has tested positive. Many are now suffering his loss, including Senator Tim Caine of Virginia, who tweeted: “My heart sinks as I learn this morning that Bishop Gerald Glenn … died yesterday from COVID-19. He was a friend and pillar of Richmond faith community. May all do as much for so many.”
Christian faith is in the news during this pandemic. What better time to consult the Bible and think theologically about faith and suffering?
On March 29, Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne defied lockdown orders and held services at his megachurch, River at Tampa Bay Church, claiming that faith would protect him and all the faithful. He was arrested after the service. On Easter Sunday, Howard-Browne preached from his home and said, “This is not about a virus. This is about shutting down the gospel of Jesus Christ. And all these pastors that say, ‘Well, we should just roll over and comply,’ you don’t understand.”
Christian faith is in the news during this pandemic. What better time to consult the Bible and think theologically about faith and suffering, healing and dying, truth and error? How does faith bear on Christian conduct when the world seems to be falling apart?
Faith in God
The faith of the follower of Jesus should be rooted in the Bible and led by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit inspires us in virtue and knowledge. He will not contradict Scripture, since it is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:15-16). Christian faith is neither the opposite of knowledge nor is it irrational, but rather grounded in God’s rational-verbal revelation. “Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ” (Romans 10:17).
Thus, every word from every preacher and every word of every book should be tested against the Bible as the final and true authority. As David wrote, “Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path” (Psalm 119:105). Sadly, there are shepherds with good hearts who preach bad things. And there are false shepherds (see Ezekiel 34; 2 Peter 2:1).
God In Control
Pandemic or not, Scripture assures us that the Creator has not lost control over his good creation. The divine plan will be accomplished, come what may. The Apostle Paul assures Christians that their salvation is secure because their loving God “works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Ephesians 1:11). Isaiah speaks the word of God to a troubled people:
Why do you complain, Jacob?
Why do you say, Israel,
“My way is hidden from the Lord;
my cause is disregarded by my God”?
Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary,
and his understanding no one can fathom.
He gives strength to the weary
and increases the power of the weak. (Isaiah 40:27-29)
Thus, our faith is rooted in the character of our sovereign and holy God, who is “our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble” (Psalm 46:1). Faith in God is what God calls for: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).
But what is faith?
Two Meanings of Faith
The word faith can mean the faith — as in the Christian worldview, our theology, or our confession of faith, such as the Apostle’s Creed. So, Paul writes: “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith” (2 Timothy 4:7, KJV).
Faith can also mean exercising a belief that God will do something in a particular situation. When Paul was preaching in Lystra, he saw a man who had never walked who was listening to him. “Paul looked directly at him, saw that he had faith to be healed and called out, ‘Stand up on your feet!’ At that, the man jumped up and began to walk” (Acts 14:9-10).
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Jesus also responded to a number of people like this. When Jesus saw his faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” He went on to supernaturally heal the man of his infirmity to demonstrate that he had the authority of forgive sins (Mark 2:5-12).
Since God can heal and can supernaturally protect us, should every follower of Jesus have faith that he or she can supernaturally resist a deadly virus or pray that someone will supernaturally recover from it? The answer is: yes and no.
Believing, But not Presuming
Yes, God can, and does, protect and heal people today. Jesus, who was raised from the dead, can touch people today as no one else can. Miracles have happened and still happen, as Lee Strobel argues convincingly in The Case for Miracles. As Francis Schaeffer wrote in True Spirituality, we live in a “supernatural universe.” The eyes of faith see more than the material world and its limits.
Paul teaches that some have special gifts for faith and for healing that other Christians do not possess (see 1 Corinthians 12:1-11). Some believers have more faith for healing and miracles than I do. Still, however much faith we have, we should pray “in Jesus’ name.” We pray, as best we understand, in accordance with his teachings and for the furtherance of his Kingdom (Matthew 6:33).
Faith is no panacea for a pandemic. Nor is “putting God to the test” an exercise in biblical faith.
Faith is not presumption, however. When we can avoid danger to our health or that of others through natural means, we must do so for the sake of love. Paul told Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach problems (1 Timothy 5:23). When the Devil was tempting Jesus in the wilderness, he bid Jesus to throw himself off the top of the temple because God’s angels would catch him. He even quoted Psalm 91 to make his point! But “Jesus replied, ‘It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test’” (Matthew 4:5-7; see Deuteronomy 6:16). Failing to take precautions against this deadly virus is just like foolishly jumping off the temple.
Living With Wisdom and Faith
In a pandemic, it is wise to minimize and mitigate the chance of infection through public health measures. Since we are under the authority of the civil government (unless it compels us to sin), we ought to follow its restrictions in a crisis (Romans 13:1-7). When the state forbids public meetings in general, it is not trying to “shut down the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” as Howard-Browne said. It is trying to save lives, and we as Christian citizens should comply since we ought to seek the good of our cities (see Jeremiah 29:7; Matthew 5:13-16).
Faith is no panacea for a pandemic. Nor is “putting God to the test” an exercise in biblical faith. Faith is, rather, a tough and gritty way to live and to die — to hope and be blessed and to hope and be disappointed in this groaning world (see Romans 8:16-24). But whatever happens, we are in God’s hands and we should seek to please our Lord through our faith in what he has revealed in the Bible.
Douglas Groothuis is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary where he heads the apologetics and ethics masters degree program. He is the author of 12 books, including Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.
CALL TO ACTION: COVID-19 is causing massive disruptions in life. The Stream’s parent organization, LIFE Outreach International, is helping send a first wave of help. LIFE’s local mission partners are already distributing thousands of surgical masks, gloves and other sanitary supplies to first responders, hospitals and nursing homes. In addition, other partners have focused on distributing as many meals as possible to help those who need food. You can help with these efforts. Click here to donate.


thestream--2020-04-16--The Last Time I Slow-Danced With Death

The Last Time I Slow-Danced With Death

It seemed so Providential .
So heaven-sent .
So meant to be .
And perhaps it was .
Perhaps I will never really know for sure .
What I do know is , when I saw her email sitting in my inbox , my heart skipped a beat .
My article on ancient child sacrifice and the modern abortion epidemic , in which I ’ d quoted this woman — interviewed while seeking an abortion — had only been up for about three hours .
But she had obviously seen it — why else would she be emailing me ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Essay on Child Sacrifice I swallowed the lump in my throat and opened the message .
I fully expected to see a string of curses and epithets directed at me personally .
What I found , however , surprised me .
The message was respectfully written —complimentary , even ; and , although the author did take issue with some of what I ’ d written , she ’ d done so in a cool-headed and reasonable fashion .
This was clearly not your typical hysterical , off-the-rails , rabid pro-abort .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to change her mind .
Since abortion was temporarily outlawed in her state due to the coronavirus pandemic , I figured I had a bit of time to work on her .
So I decided to take it slowly .
In that first reply to her , I focused on thanking her for her civility and trying to explain the writing choices with which she had taken issue .
I also expressed my compassion for her situation by explaining that I myself was post-abortive .
Could Her Baby Be Saved ?
Late that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , heartfelt reply .
She included grisly details of her medical condition , which was severe .
She also described her dire financial situation .
She ’ d been living paycheck-to-paycheck as a single mom , without any familial support , until she lost her job entirely as a result of the pandemic .
She even included a photo of her two adorable sons .
All of this made me feel incredibly close to her in spite of the hundreds of miles between us .
She ended by expressing her belief that pro-lifers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others and disregard women ’ s rights .
Well , I had to respond , not only because of her misconceptions , but because of the bond with her I now felt .
However , I didn ’ t want to respond with words alone .
I wanted to respond with concrete resources and solutions to help her choose life , because the obstacles she ’ d presented were both real and daunting .
This is where social media proved its merits .
I posted that I was seeking support services in her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ names and addresses of crisis pregnancy centers , phone numbers for pro-life counseling hotlines , and a dozen other life-affirming resources , all in her general vicinity .
We Can Help With all my ducks in a row , I sat down to write my reply .
I thanked her for sharing so much with me and told her how privileged I felt that she had given me such an intimate glimpse into her world .
Then I answered her complaints about pro-life “ zealots ” : I then listed all of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and said : Lastly , I told her a bit of my story .
I told her about the two abortions I ’ d had —how they ’ d damaged my mind , body , and soul in ways that I will regret for the rest of my life .
And I told her I wouldn ’ t wish what I ’ d been through on anyone , and particularly not on her .
I pleaded with her to at least consult the resources I ’ d listed and explore all of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change her life forever .
Within minutes , she replied .
She said she hadn ’ t read my entire email , but promised to do so later .
“ However , ” she continued : My heart sank , but I made a conscious decision not to abandon hope .
After all , she only said she ’ d “ obtained access , ” not that she ’ d gone through with it .
I made an urgent plea for prayers via my social network .
At this point , I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paying all of the mom ’ s expenses over and above what the pregnancy centers could cover — including her rent , utilities , and medical expenses .
“ I am not limited in what I can give , ” this saintly woman said in a very emotional telephone conversation .
“ Please give her my number and ask her to call me.
” So I made a last-ditch effort and sent another message .
I notified the mother of this new offer and gave her the benefactor ’ s name and phone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” I concluded , “ I will still be here , no matter what you decide .
If you ever need to talk , you know how to reach me.
” After that , I played the waiting game .
I tried to distract myself with a sewing project , but still found myself jumping every time I heard the new email notification on my phone .
Finally , her reply came : “ I am no longer pregnant.
” The words were a kick in the gut .
I felt dizzy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ her closing words of thanks for my concern , time , and empathy as the tears began to flow .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
I was beside myself .
A child had been murdered .
And a woman — a woman to whom I had come to feel deeply connected — was now broken in a way that could never be fixed this side of eternity .
I didn ’ t know what to do .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out .
I got in my car and started to drive .
As I got on the freeway , I finally felt sufficiently alone to unleash the scream I ’ d been restraining deep within .
“ Why , God ?
Why , why , why … ?
” I couldn ’ t stop wailing .
I still haven ’ t figured out the answer .
I ’ m trying to console myself with the knowledge that I proved pro-lifers to be deeply caring people to someone who had thought of us as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all evil into good .
And with the hope that I planted a seed that may someday blossom into a conversion .
Yet a baby is still dead .
A woman is still irreparably wounded .
And my heart is still shattered .
But was it worth the fight ?
Absolutely .
Will I do it again ?
You ’ d better believe it .
And I will inevitably suffer additional heartbreaks that ’ ll hurt just as much as this one .
But here ’ s the crux : I know I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it honors the Author of Life .
And nothing else matters .
Bettina di Fiore is a San Francisco Bay Area-based writer , teacher , and liturgical seamstress .
Her blog can be found at www.watchingthewhirlwind.net .

It seemed so Providential. So heaven-sent. So meant to be. And perhaps it was. Perhaps I will never really know for sure.
What I do know is, when I saw her email sitting in my inbox, my heart skipped a beat. My article on ancient child sacrifice and the modern abortion epidemic, in which I’d quoted this woman — interviewed while seeking an abortion — had only been up for about three hours. But she had obviously seen it — why else would she be emailing me?
I’d Quoted Her in an Essay on Child Sacrifice
I swallowed the lump in my throat and opened the message. I fully expected to see a string of curses and epithets directed at me personally. What I found, however, surprised me. The message was respectfully written —complimentary, even; and, although the author did take issue with some of what I’d written, she’d done so in a cool-headed and reasonable fashion.
This was clearly not your typical hysterical, off-the-rails, rabid pro-abort. I decided right then and there to try to change her mind.
Since abortion was temporarily outlawed in her state due to the coronavirus pandemic, I figured I had a bit of time to work on her. So I decided to take it slowly. In that first reply to her, I focused on thanking her for her civility and trying to explain the writing choices with which she had taken issue. I also expressed my compassion for her situation by explaining that I myself was post-abortive.
Could Her Baby Be Saved?
Late that night, she wrote me a beautiful, heartfelt reply. She included grisly details of her medical condition, which was severe. She also described her dire financial situation. She’d been living paycheck-to-paycheck as a single mom, without any familial support, until she lost her job entirely as a result of the pandemic. She even included a photo of her two adorable sons. All of this made me feel incredibly close to her in spite of the hundreds of miles between us. She ended by expressing her belief that pro-lifers are zealots who force their beliefs onto others and disregard women’s rights.
Her medical condition was severe, her financial situation dire. She’d been living paycheck-to-paycheck as a single mom, without any familial support, until she lost her job entirely as a result of the pandemic.
Well, I had to respond, not only because of her misconceptions, but because of the bond with her I now felt. However, I didn’t want to respond with words alone. I wanted to respond with concrete resources and solutions to help her choose life, because the obstacles she’d presented were both real and daunting.
This is where social media proved its merits. I posted that I was seeking support services in her area. Within minutes I had the names and addresses of crisis pregnancy centers, phone numbers for pro-life counseling hotlines, and a dozen other life-affirming resources, all in her general vicinity.
We Can Help
With all my ducks in a row, I sat down to write my reply. I thanked her for sharing so much with me and told her how privileged I felt that she had given me such an intimate glimpse into her world. Then I answered her complaints about pro-life “zealots”:
I wish you could be a fly on the wall in my apartment — better yet, in my mind and my heart. … After I read your heart-rending message, I spent the entirety of my morning and early afternoon combing through my contacts, making phone calls, sending emails— hunting down people in your area who are prepared to help you in a tangible and substantial way.
I then listed all of the resources I had gathered for her, and said:
If you knew how many people were involved in obtaining this information — people who have all been touched by your story … your perception of “people like me” might soften.
Lastly, I told her a bit of my story. I told her about the two abortions I’d had —how they’d damaged my mind, body, and soul in ways that I will regret for the rest of my life. And I told her I wouldn’t wish what I’d been through on anyone, and particularly not on her. I pleaded with her to at least consult the resources I’d listed and explore all of her options before making a decision that would change her life forever.
Was I Too Late?
Within minutes, she replied. She said she hadn’t read my entire email, but promised to do so later. “However,” she continued:
I want you to know I’ve already obtained access to an abortion, with much difficulty, so I didn’t want you to continue using your time to seek resources for me. I do appreciate your empathy.
My heart sank, but I made a conscious decision not to abandon hope. After all, she only said she’d “obtained access,” not that she’d gone through with it. I made an urgent plea for prayers via my social network.
At this point, I was connected to someone who personally committed to paying all of the mom’s expenses over and above what the pregnancy centers could cover — including her rent, utilities, and medical expenses. “I am not limited in what I can give,” this saintly woman said in a very emotional telephone conversation. “Please give her my number and ask her to call me.”
So I made a last-ditch effort and sent another message. I notified the mother of this new offer and gave her the benefactor’s name and phone number. “As for me,” I concluded, “I will still be here, no matter what you decide. If you ever need to talk, you know how to reach me.”
I Am No Longer Pregnant
After that, I played the waiting game. I tried to distract myself with a sewing project, but still found myself jumping every time I heard the new email notification on my phone.
Finally, her reply came: “I am no longer pregnant.” The words were a kick in the gut. I felt dizzy. So I almost couldn’t read her closing words of thanks for my concern, time, and empathy as the tears began to flow.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
I was beside myself. A child had been murdered. And a woman — a woman to whom I had come to feel deeply connected — was now broken in a way that could never be fixed this side of eternity. I didn’t know what to do. In fact, I wanted to tear my hair out.
Why, God? Why?
I got in my car and started to drive. As I got on the freeway, I finally felt sufficiently alone to unleash the scream I’d been restraining deep within. “Why, God? Why, why, why …? ” I couldn’t stop wailing.
I still haven’t figured out the answer.
I’m trying to console myself with the knowledge that I proved pro-lifers to be deeply caring people to someone who had thought of us as cruel would-be dictators. That God transforms all evil into good. And with the hope that I planted a seed that may someday blossom into a conversion.
Yet a baby is still dead. A woman is still irreparably wounded. And my heart is still shattered.
But was it worth the fight? Absolutely.
Will I do it again? You’d better believe it.
Will I lose more battles? Indubitably.
And I will inevitably suffer additional heartbreaks that’ll hurt just as much as this one.
But here’s the crux: I know I am doing the right thing, because it honors the Author of Life.
And nothing else matters.
Bettina di Fiore is a San Francisco Bay Area-based writer, teacher, and liturgical seamstress. Her blog can be found at www.watchingthewhirlwind.net.


thestream--2020-04-17--Military Photo of the Day: New York Air National Guard Serving at Bellevue Hospital

A New York Air National Guard airman assigned to the fatality search and recovery team stands outside Bellevue Hospital in @ @ @ @ @ 2020 .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
@ @ @ @ @ .

A New York Air National Guard airman assigned to the fatality search and recovery team stands outside Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan on April 4, 2020.
Thank you.
React to This Article What do you think of our coverage in this article? We value your feedback as we continue to grow.


thestream--2020-04-17--Why Pandemic-Inspired Work Changes are Good News for Pro-Life Feminism

My boss can ’ t figure out Zoom .
My baby screamed during my conference call .
I ’ m sharing a workspace with a moody middle schooler .
We all have stories like these , or we ’ ve heard them .
Many of the people lucky enough to still have jobs suddenly find themselves working from home .
Such an unexpected adjustment comes with challenges .
Even so , restructuring how we work could prove beneficial in the long run .
It could even help accomplish two seemingly conflicting goals : making America more pro-life and pro-family , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Right Now , No One Wins I ’ m a mom who works part time from home .
I ’ m also a pro-life feminist , paradoxical as that may sound to some .
Accordingly , I don ’ t view the goals of fostering a more family-friendly society and achieving better gender equality as contradictory .
But I can see how one might .
For one , research is clear that a mother ’ s presence is key to early childhood development .
Psychoanalyst Erica Komisar explores this in detail in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Motherhood in the First Three Years Matters .
Forget about the “ three years ” part , though .
Few women in the United States have access to even a couple months of paid maternity leave , something Komisar laments .
Even worse , many women feel pressured not to take the leave available to them .
They fear being discriminated against upon their return .
Saldy , that fear is not unfounded .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rigid schedules that are simply incompatible with family life .
It means not making yourself a nuisance with “ special ” requests for maternity leave or flexibility .
No wonder mainstream feminists argue abortion is essential for women ’ s equality .
And no wonder many conservatives , valuing motherhood , aren ’ t particularly motivated to pursue policies aimed at such “ equality.
” What if everyone is going about it all wrong ?
In her book A Good Time to Be a Girl , British former finance CEO and mother-of-nine Helena @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways of working are largely built around what made sense in the past , before we had technology , for a narrow group of people in a world where roles were clearly defined and when career paths were linear.
” “ We now need to re-devise those working practices , so we can work more efficiently , more intelligently , more productively , ” she goes on .
How Workplace Flexibility Can Benefit Moms , Dads , and Kids Are remote work and flexibility really effective from a business standpoint ?
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the research says yes .
Moreover , research tells us that younger generations prefer workplace flexibility in order to better prioritize work-life balance .
That includes men .
What would happen if companies stopped reserving flexible work options as perks for the chosen few ?
What if they made it the standard ?
Women would clearly benefit .
After all , many of the factors currently creating the children-versus-career dichotomy would disappear .
Kids , who need their moms , would obviously benefit .
But kids also need time with their dads .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ involvement correspond with better outcomes for children .
However , many dads bear the brunt of providing financially for their families at the expense of time with their families .
Evidence suggests Americans are overworked .
That ’ s bad for families , health , and even productivity .
Some jobs are by nature more demanding , “ but constant pressure should not be a role requirement , ” Morissey argues .
“ It certainly does not bring out the best in anyone , man or woman , and is unsustainable.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the name of giving women a turn to burnout at work .
“ We are now looking less at role reversal and more at sharing different aspects of what it takes to bring up a family , earn money , and develop careers , ” Morissey writes .
That sounds like something we can all get behind .
Women Need Work , and the Workplace Needs Women Some feminists dream of a 50/50 gender split in all fields and leadership positions .
Conservatives point out that women are more likely to want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They ’ re also less likely to want certain jobs .
That ’ s all true , but it doesn ’ t mean women don ’ t want careers at all .
Pew Research Center finds that “ most parents with children younger than 18 say it would be best for them personally to be employed , either full time or part time , at this point in their life.
” Among mothers specifically , “ 51 % say it would be best for them to be working full time , 30 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 19 % say the optimal arrangement for them would be not to work for pay at all right now.
” Importantly , women are good for business .
Mainstream feminism recoils at the suggestion of male-female differences .
But arguing that men and women are exactly the same is neither compelling nor true .
Science shows that men and women are different .
We generally have different social , emotional , and intellectual strengths .
In short , we complement each other .
One sex isn ’ t better than the other .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the result is better .
The pro-choice left insists women can ’ t have a family and successfully contribute to the outside world .
This reinforces a workplace norm that was never made to accommodate , let alone value , women for all that we are and all that we do .
Conservatives tend to the downplay the importance — both to women and for society — of women working outside the home .
Changing the way we work isn ’ t the sole solution .
But it ’ s a huge , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presented the opportunity to take it .
If we look past the bumps made by the urgent and unplanned nature of the shift , we could start to see what a more pro-life , family-friendly , empowered America looks like .
Liberty McArtor , former staff writer for The Stream , is a freelance writer in the great state of Texas , where she lives in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex with her husband and son .
Follow Liberty on Twitter @ LibertyMcArtor , or learn more about her at LibertyMcArtor.com .

My boss can’t figure out Zoom. My baby screamed during my conference call. I’m sharing a workspace with a moody middle schooler.
We all have stories like these, or we’ve heard them. Many of the people lucky enough to still have jobs suddenly find themselves working from home. Such an unexpected adjustment comes with challenges. Even so, restructuring how we work could prove beneficial in the long run. It could even help accomplish two seemingly conflicting goals: making America more pro-life and pro-family, and helping women achieve genuine workplace equality.
Right Now, No One Wins
I’m a mom who works part time from home. I’m also a pro-life feminist, paradoxical as that may sound to some. Accordingly, I don’t view the goals of fostering a more family-friendly society and achieving better gender equality as contradictory. But I can see how one might.
For one, research is clear that a mother’s presence is key to early childhood development. Psychoanalyst Erica Komisar explores this in detail in her book Being There: Why Prioritizing Motherhood in the First Three Years Matters. Forget about the “three years” part, though. Few women in the United States have access to even a couple months of paid maternity leave, something Komisar laments. Even worse, many women feel pressured not to take the leave available to them. They fear being discriminated against upon their return. Saldy, that fear is not unfounded.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Often, career advancement means working within rigid schedules that are simply incompatible with family life. It means not making yourself a nuisance with “special” requests for maternity leave or flexibility. No wonder mainstream feminists argue abortion is essential for women’s equality. And no wonder many conservatives, valuing motherhood, aren’t particularly motivated to pursue policies aimed at such “equality.”
What if everyone is going about it all wrong?
In her book A Good Time to Be a Girl, British former finance CEO and mother-of-nine Helena Morrissey argues that “today’s ways of working are largely built around what made sense in the past, before we had technology, for a narrow group of people in a world where roles were clearly defined and when career paths were linear.”
“We now need to re-devise those working practices, so we can work more efficiently, more intelligently, more productively,” she goes on.
How Workplace Flexibility Can Benefit Moms, Dads, and Kids
Examining the pros and cons of working remotely in The Atlantic, writer Derek Thompson notes that one drawback is loneliness. Losing the sense of community that comes from sharing office space might not sting so bad if we found social fulfillment elsewhere in our communities — an idea I explore more here.
Are remote work and flexibility really effective from a business standpoint? There are plenty of opinions, but much of the research says yes. Moreover, research tells us that younger generations prefer workplace flexibility in order to better prioritize work-life balance. That includes men.
What would happen if companies stopped reserving flexible work options as perks for the chosen few? What if they made it the standard?
Women would clearly benefit. After all, many of the factors currently creating the children-versus-career dichotomy would disappear. Kids, who need their moms, would obviously benefit. But kids also need time with their dads. Research shows that higher levels of paternal involvement correspond with better outcomes for children. However, many dads bear the brunt of providing financially for their families at the expense of time with their families.
Evidence suggests Americans are overworked. That’s bad for families, health, and even productivity. Some jobs are by nature more demanding, “but constant pressure should not be a role requirement,” Morissey argues. “It certainly does not bring out the best in anyone, man or woman, and is unsustainable.”
The answer isn’t merely swapping roles in the name of giving women a turn to burnout at work. “We are now looking less at role reversal and more at sharing different aspects of what it takes to bring up a family, earn money, and develop careers,” Morissey writes. That sounds like something we can all get behind.
Women Need Work, and the Workplace Needs Women
Some feminists dream of a 50/50 gender split in all fields and leadership positions. Conservatives point out that women are more likely to want to stay home with their kids. They’re also less likely to want certain jobs. That’s all true, but it doesn’t mean women don’t want careers at all. Pew Research Center finds that “most parents with children younger than 18 say it would be best for them personally to be employed, either full time or part time, at this point in their life.”
Among mothers specifically, “51% say it would be best for them to be working full time, 30% say part-time work would be best and 19% say the optimal arrangement for them would be not to work for pay at all right now.”
Importantly, women are good for business. Mainstream feminism recoils at the suggestion of male-female differences. But arguing that men and women are exactly the same is neither compelling nor true. Science shows that men and women are different. We generally have different social, emotional, and intellectual strengths. In short, we complement each other. One sex isn’t better than the other. But when the sexes work together, the result is better.
A Glimpse of the Future
The pro-choice left insists women can’t have a family and successfully contribute to the outside world. This reinforces a workplace norm that was never made to accommodate, let alone value, women for all that we are and all that we do. Conservatives tend to the downplay the importance — both to women and for society — of women working outside the home.
Changing the way we work isn’t the sole solution. But it’s a huge, critical step. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented the opportunity to take it. If we look past the bumps made by the urgent and unplanned nature of the shift, we could start to see what a more pro-life, family-friendly, empowered America looks like.
Liberty McArtor, former staff writer for The Stream, is a freelance writer in the great state of Texas, where she lives in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex with her husband and son. Follow Liberty on Twitter @LibertyMcArtor, or learn more about her at LibertyMcArtor.com.


thestream--2020-04-17--COVID-19 and the Trolley Problem: You’re on the Tracks and the Government Is Controlling the Switch

Most wannabe moral philosophers know the “ trolley problem ” or , to be more accurate , the class of trolley problems , which seek to reveal whether you ’ d take a deliberate , positive action that you know will harm someone in order to reduce harm to others .
The purpose of these thought experiments is to shed light on morality and moral intuition .
The classic exemplar considers whether you ’ d flip the points on a train track to send a trolley loose from a train that was going to kill three people on its current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kill only one .
If you flip the points , then the moral upside is that you saved three-minus-one-equals-two lives net ; the moral downside is that you were directly responsible for killing a man .
One can almost hear excited moral philosophers ’ whispering , “ It ’ s happening.
” The coronavirus is the trolley problem of the century .
Well , almost .
Some government institutions and officers have decided to harm millions of people by closing businesses , making workers unemployed , and separating people from their family and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ belief ( we assume ) that they are mitigating more harm than they are causing .
Perhaps they are .
But how sure can we be ?
And does it matter ?
More terrifying than the virus — at least to this writer , who ( full disclosure ) being healthy , is quite sanguine about his odds of surviving a virus that almost certainly would feel like a nasty flu , at worst — is that irresistible government forces have decided to flip the points on the track .
To push the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think that by doing so , they save lives on one track at the cost of only breaking legs on the other .
But the moral calculus depends entirely on how many lives will be saved or can be saved ( they are not the same thing ) compared to how many livelihoods will be destroyed and other harms done .
And the answer to that query must account for the fact that those destroyed livelihoods and other harms will in themselves lead to some losses of life — which may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus .
We all know why governments are doing what they are doing .
By forbidding travel and closing businesses for example , they are attempting to “ flatten the curve ” — lower the peak number of COVID-19 infections in the hope that a larger fraction of those who suffer from them can be successfully treated .
Doing this means that the peak will take longer to reach , and the strategy won ’ t necessarily reduce the total number of people who become infected or die from the virus in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I am now just one degree of separation from people who have already been made jobless and/or homeless by the enforced shutting of workplaces .
If you can not feed or shelter your family , then on the balance of probabilities , the outcomes for you and your kin are going to be worse than exposure to the virus — especially if you and yours are physically healthy .
( Recent figures from Italy suggest that 99 % of all deaths from the virus were of people who were already ill. ) The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accumulate over time — and a few of them may rise as exponentially as the infectious disease they are designed to combat .
Some will be related to lack of access to material resources ; others to the psychological effects of conditions on which we don ’ t have the data .
At one level , the world ’ s reaction is like that of a student who ’ s just discovered utilitarianism but missed the point of the class .
Utilitarianism is the moral philosophy that says that a good or right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good for the most people .
One of the fundamental problems with it is illustrated by asking a simple question : if we can save 10 lives by killing one person and donating his organs to 10 others , shouldn ’ t we do so ?
There ’ s a reason the answer is “ no.
” Yet , in its response to COVID-19 , many jurisdictions are happy to risk huge damage to the physical and material health of many people to save others .
Whether you ’ re a utilitarian or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamental importance of the question and the principle at stake .
Before you decide whether this is a fair question to ask of government policy , consider that we don ’ t even forcibly remove a single kidney from a healthy person with two kidneys to save life — even when doing so will likely have no effects on the compelled donor .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
So why is it ok to forcibly remove a job and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to save the life of another unknown — especially when that other is not the victim of a malign act and is free to take action to avoid potential harm ?
The operative word — the moral word — in that last question is , of course , “ forcibly.
” We need to revise our trolley problem analogy .
To make it a better fit to the situation we find ourselves in under the threat of COVID-19 , we need to mention that the people standing on the train tracks within the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without agency .
They all know the trolley is coming ; they can use whatever choices they have to get off the tracks , and most ( although not all , it is must said ) have the ability to do so .
Whereas those who are scared of contracting COVID-19 can take precautions , the people who lose their jobs or homes on account of government-imposed measures have no say in what is happening to them .
If restaurants in my home city of Seattle were to remain open , no one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expose themselves to the associated risk .
All concerned — proprietors , workers , and customers — would have a choice in that .
On the other hand , the minimum-wage server who is laid off or the business owner who can ’ t cover his costs has no means of protecting herself .
And yet , most people are very accepting of the way governments are acting .
It is understandable why that is so , and the reason is simple ; it is that enough of us believe , “ if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the virus is more likely to kill me.
” Perhaps .
But the extent to which that is true depends mostly on you .
So how about the following for fairer and more proportionate ?
If I ’ m more scared about the certainty of losing my livelihood by closing my restaurant or on account of my employer doing so , then let me go to work .
If I ’ m more scared about the small probability of losing my life by eating or working at my local restaurant , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home .
For sure , people must be given the best information available to weigh and compare those risks from day to day — but why would we remove their ability to do so when lives and livelihoods at stake and everyone ’ s circumstances are so very different ?
That information would include the very low probability of receiving treatment when hospital beds are full — so you ’ ll be clear about the risk you ’ d be taking by going to a commercial location as either worker or customer .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not too tough a word for policy that puts tens of thousands of people out of work and potentially makes them homeless ) , you probably won ’ t be getting care when you need it because there may not be enough hospital beds available .
So why not give people information about all of these factors and risks and let them decide for themselves and their loved ones , including their children ?
By not doing so , we are on a very slippery slope .
The worst-case projections for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the population .
Has anyone done the math on how many lives will be lost on account of the economic effects of a lockdown for as long as it will take for this infection to ride itself out , bearing in mind that the more we slow the infection rate , the longer it takes to reach its peak and the longer the population takes to become immune ?
Has anyone tried to weigh the last few years of a frail older person ’ s life against the livelihoods of entire families ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ these terms ?
If the answer is “ no , ” then to return to our trolley problem , how can the government even tell on which set of tracks the smaller number of people , or the less vulnerable people , are standing — and down which they think they should send the trolley ?
Let us make a final modification to the coronavirus trolley analogy : you won ’ t be flipping the points ; the government is doing that and you ’ re one of the people on the track @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely a function of which track you think you ’ re stuck on — and that will depend on your personality , physical health , financial health , and other factors .
If you are scared of getting the virus ( perhaps because you ’ re unhealthy , old , or have a more anxious disposition ) , you are more likely to support the government ’ s flipping the points and damaging others ’ livelihoods to protect you ; if you are not ( perhaps because you ’ re young , healthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , you are more likely to resent the willful damage to your own or others ’ livelihoods and be concerned about the long-term consequences of the emergency decisions that are being taken .
In other words , your preference may be about your principles — but it ’ s also about your biases .
Since we are dealing in lives and deaths , we have a moral duty to examine those biases before we let anyone flip those points … especially because once we let them be flipped , you can bet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again .
There are a good many such biases at play .
Here are just three of the big ones .
The first , the pseudocertainty effect , is very evident .
This is the tendency to make risk-averse choices ( like preventing people engaging in business ) if the expected outcome is positive , but to make risk-seeking choices ( like shutting down an economy ) to avoid negative outcomes .
The second is the optimism bias .
That ’ s the tendency to underestimate greatly the probability of undesirable outcomes ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses , millions of jobs and months of education ) and overestimating favorable and pleasing outcomes ( like reducing the number of people who catch a virus ) .
The third is the availability bias .
That ’ s the tendency to give too much weight to outcomes about which we have better information or understanding ( like dying from an illness ) and too little weight to outcomes about which we don ’ t have information and can ’ t conceive ( such as , and I hate to be repetitious , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , millions of jobs and months of education ) .
In relation to all of those biases , remember that many of the measures being taken under special government authorities to protect lives in the short-run will themselves have unquantifiable consequences on health and lives in both the short and long runs .
Again , has anyone done the math — or are we just reacting ; and if we are , have we ( to adulterate a fashionable expression in progressive circles ) “ checked our bias ?
” Let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ availability bias .
It is the one that tyranny is made of , because it causes We the People to allow our civil ( and in the USA , at least , Constitutional ) rights to be abridged “ for our own good.
” In a moment of fear or panic , we choose not so much security over individual liberty ( “ Those who would give up essential liberty , to purchase a little temporary safety , deserve neither liberty nor safety , ” as Benjamin Franklin said ) as security over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything here with an , “ easy for you to say ” under your breath .
And you would be entirely right : it is very easy for me to say .
But my point is that I — and you — should at least get a say when the stakes are this high — and dying from a virus is , still , a rather unlikely way of losing the gamble .
A say and a choice , that is .
Morality and liberty demand both those for the simple reason that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t take yours away from you and doesn ’ t condemn you to death .
Not even close .
If , on the other hand , you would take both of those away from me and everyone else , then you ’ d better be able to look in the eye the minimum-wage single mother and tell her it was worth her losing her job so that you could reduce your chance of dying from an illness by fractions of a percentage point .
And if people like me go out for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can scoff at me again as I am left to suffer at home because there aren ’ t enough beds at the hospital … … Not that that would make much difference to me if I ’ d lost my health insurance — and my roof — with my job and my liberty .
Robin Koerner is British-born and recently became a citizen of the USA .
A decade ago , he founded WatchingAmerica.com , an organization of over 200 volunteers that translates and posts views about the USA from all over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a consultant , and recently wrote the book If You Can Keep It .

Most wannabe moral philosophers know the “trolley problem” or, to be more accurate, the class of trolley problems, which seek to reveal whether you’d take a deliberate, positive action that you know will harm someone in order to reduce harm to others. The purpose of these thought experiments is to shed light on morality and moral intuition.
The classic exemplar considers whether you’d flip the points on a train track to send a trolley loose from a train that was going to kill three people on its current course down another track where it will kill only one. If you flip the points, then the moral upside is that you saved three-minus-one-equals-two lives net; the moral downside is that you were directly responsible for killing a man.
One can almost hear excited moral philosophers’ whispering, “It’s happening.” The coronavirus is the trolley problem of the century. Well, almost.
The Moral Dilemma
Some government institutions and officers have decided to harm millions of people by closing businesses, making workers unemployed, and separating people from their family and friends … in the sure and justified belief (we assume) that they are mitigating more harm than they are causing.
Perhaps they are. But how sure can we be? And does it matter?
More terrifying than the virus — at least to this writer, who (full disclosure) being healthy, is quite sanguine about his odds of surviving a virus that almost certainly would feel like a nasty flu, at worst — is that irresistible government forces have decided to flip the points on the track.
To push the analogy a little over-hard, they seem to think that by doing so, they save lives on one track at the cost of only breaking legs on the other.
But the moral calculus depends entirely on how many lives will be saved or can be saved (they are not the same thing) compared to how many livelihoods will be destroyed and other harms done.
And the answer to that query must account for the fact that those destroyed livelihoods and other harms will in themselves lead to some losses of life — which may be much less visible than deaths from the virus.
We all know why governments are doing what they are doing. By forbidding travel and closing businesses for example, they are attempting to “flatten the curve” — lower the peak number of COVID-19 infections in the hope that a larger fraction of those who suffer from them can be successfully treated. Doing this means that the peak will take longer to reach, and the strategy won’t necessarily reduce the total number of people who become infected or die from the virus in the long-run (though it may).
If you cannot feed or shelter your family, then on the balance of probabilities, the outcomes for you and your kin are going to be worse than exposure to the virus — especially if you and yours are physically healthy.
I am now just one degree of separation from people who have already been made jobless and/or homeless by the enforced shutting of workplaces. If you cannot feed or shelter your family, then on the balance of probabilities, the outcomes for you and your kin are going to be worse than exposure to the virus — especially if you and yours are physically healthy. (Recent figures from Italy suggest that 99% of all deaths from the virus were of people who were already ill.)
The effects of enforced poverty and isolation will accumulate over time — and a few of them may rise as exponentially as the infectious disease they are designed to combat. Some will be related to lack of access to material resources; others to the psychological effects of conditions on which we don’t have the data.
At one level, the world’s reaction is like that of a student who’s just discovered utilitarianism but missed the point of the class. Utilitarianism is the moral philosophy that says that a good or right action is one that does the most good for the most people. One of the fundamental problems with it is illustrated by asking a simple question: if we can save 10 lives by killing one person and donating his organs to 10 others, shouldn’t we do so? There’s a reason the answer is “no.” Yet, in its response to COVID-19, many jurisdictions are happy to risk huge damage to the physical and material health of many people to save others.
Whether you’re a utilitarian or not, you have to admit the fundamental importance of the question and the principle at stake.
Before you decide whether this is a fair question to ask of government policy, consider that we don’t even forcibly remove a single kidney from a healthy person with two kidneys to save life — even when doing so will likely have no effects on the compelled donor.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
So why is it ok to forcibly remove a job and a home and a livelihood from anyone to save the life of another unknown — especially when that other is not the victim of a malign act and is free to take action to avoid potential harm?
The operative word — the moral word — in that last question is, of course, “forcibly.”
We need to revise our trolley problem analogy. To make it a better fit to the situation we find ourselves in under the threat of COVID-19, we need to mention that the people standing on the train tracks within the sound of the oncoming trolley are not without agency. They all know the trolley is coming; they can use whatever choices they have to get off the tracks, and most (although not all, it is must said) have the ability to do so.
Whereas those who are scared of contracting COVID-19 can take precautions, the people who lose their jobs or homes on account of government-imposed measures have no say in what is happening to them. If restaurants in my home city of Seattle were to remain open, no one would be forced to frequent them and expose themselves to the associated risk. All concerned — proprietors, workers, and customers — would have a choice in that. On the other hand, the minimum-wage server who is laid off or the business owner who can’t cover his costs has no means of protecting herself.
And yet, most people are very accepting of the way governments are acting. It is understandable why that is so, and the reason is simple; it is that enough of us believe, “if we allow people to make those choices, the virus is more likely to kill me.”
Perhaps. But the extent to which that is true depends mostly on you. So how about the following for fairer and more proportionate?
If I’m more scared about the certainty of losing my livelihood by closing my restaurant or on account of my employer doing so, then let me go to work. If I’m more scared about the small probability of losing my life by eating or working at my local restaurant, then, well, let me stay at home.
For sure, people must be given the best information available to weigh and compare those risks from day to day — but why would we remove their ability to do so when lives and livelihoods at stake and everyone’s circumstances are so very different?
That information would include the very low probability of receiving treatment when hospital beds are full — so you’ll be clear about the risk you’d be taking by going to a commercial location as either worker or customer. Even under near-draconian measures (and that’s not too tough a word for policy that puts tens of thousands of people out of work and potentially makes them homeless), you probably won’t be getting care when you need it because there may not be enough hospital beds available.
So why not give people information about all of these factors and risks and let them decide for themselves and their loved ones, including their children?
By not doing so, we are on a very slippery slope.
The Trolley Problem and Coronavirus, Revisited
The worst-case projections for deaths from coronavirus are 3% of the population. Has anyone done the math on how many lives will be lost on account of the economic effects of a lockdown for as long as it will take for this infection to ride itself out, bearing in mind that the more we slow the infection rate, the longer it takes to reach its peak and the longer the population takes to become immune? Has anyone tried to weigh the last few years of a frail older person’s life against the livelihoods of entire families? Do we even want to think in these terms?
If the answer is “no,” then to return to our trolley problem, how can the government even tell on which set of tracks the smaller number of people, or the less vulnerable people, are standing — and down which they think they should send the trolley?
Let us make a final modification to the coronavirus trolley analogy: you won’t be flipping the points; the government is doing that and you’re one of the people on the track. The government action you support is likely a function of which track you think you’re stuck on — and that will depend on your personality, physical health, financial health, and other factors.
If you are scared of getting the virus (perhaps because you’re unhealthy, old, or have a more anxious disposition), you are more likely to support the government’s flipping the points and damaging others’ livelihoods to protect you; if you are not (perhaps because you’re young, healthy or more worried about losing your job), you are more likely to resent the willful damage to your own or others’ livelihoods and be concerned about the long-term consequences of the emergency decisions that are being taken.
In other words, your preference may be about your principles — but it’s also about your biases.
Since we are dealing in lives and deaths, we have a moral duty to examine those biases before we let anyone flip those points … especially because once we let them be flipped, you can bet the flippers will want to flip them again.
There are a good many such biases at play. Here are just three of the big ones.
The first, the pseudocertainty effect, is very evident. This is the tendency to make risk-averse choices (like preventing people engaging in business) if the expected outcome is positive, but to make risk-seeking choices (like shutting down an economy) to avoid negative outcomes.
The second is the optimism bias. That’s the tendency to underestimate greatly the probability of undesirable outcomes (like the consequences of destroying thousands of businesses, millions of jobs and months of education) and overestimating favorable and pleasing outcomes (like reducing the number of people who catch a virus).
The third is the availability bias. That’s the tendency to give too much weight to outcomes about which we have better information or understanding (like dying from an illness) and too little weight to outcomes about which we don’t have information and can’t conceive (such as, and I hate to be repetitious, the consequences of destroying thousands of businesses, millions of jobs and months of education).
In relation to all of those biases, remember that many of the measures being taken under special government authorities to protect lives in the short-run will themselves have unquantifiable consequences on health and lives in both the short and long runs.
Again, has anyone done the math — or are we just reacting; and if we are, have we (to adulterate a fashionable expression in progressive circles) “checked our bias?”
Let’s return to that third bias — the availability bias. It is the one that tyranny is made of, because it causes We the People to allow our civil (and in the USA, at least, Constitutional) rights to be abridged “for our own good.” In a moment of fear or panic, we choose not so much security over individual liberty (“Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety,” as Benjamin Franklin said) as security over individual responsibility.
You may scoff at everything here with an, “easy for you to say” under your breath. And you would be entirely right: it is very easy for me to say.
But my point is that I — and you — should at least get a say when the stakes are this high — and dying from a virus is, still, a rather unlikely way of losing the gamble.
A say and a choice, that is. Morality and liberty demand both those for the simple reason that leaving me with my choice doesn’t take yours away from you and doesn’t condemn you to death. Not even close.
If, on the other hand, you would take both of those away from me and everyone else, then you’d better be able to look in the eye the minimum-wage single mother and tell her it was worth her losing her job so that you could reduce your chance of dying from an illness by fractions of a percentage point.
And if people like me go out for a meal, and contract something nasty, you can scoff at me again as I am left to suffer at home because there aren’t enough beds at the hospital …
… Not that that would make much difference to me if I’d lost my health insurance — and my roof — with my job and my liberty.
Robin Koerner is British-born and recently became a citizen of the USA. A decade ago, he founded WatchingAmerica.com, an organization of over 200 volunteers that translates and posts views about the USA from all over the world, works as a trainer and a consultant, and recently wrote the book If You Can Keep It.