thestream--2020-04-28--Why Did Americans Agree to a National Lockdown?

Americans take our liberty seriously .
We have the idea of limited government enshrined in our founding documents .
We say we don ’ t like the Nanny State .
So , why did we agree without a fight or a protest to shelter-in-place orders ?
To a total lockdown ?
It ’ s one thing to agree it would be best to work from home and avoid large crowds , or to quarantine people who are sick or at severe risk .
It ’ s another for cities and states to order healthy , low-risk people not to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to leave their houses , and to arrest them if they don ’ t comply .
States can rightly do this only in the most extreme emergencies .
Most Americans have never witnessed this , or anything like it — even in the middle of a hurricane .
Some have fretted that we complied because we ’ ve all become scared little snowflakes .
Perhaps that explains part of it , but not much .
After all , we knew in mid-March that the coronavirus poses little risk to children and healthy people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we all take risks every time we leave the house .
The Lives of Others Here ’ s what made the difference : We were told the lives of other people were at stake .
Your right to swing your fist , it ’ s said , ends at your neighbor ’ s nose .
That ’ s because your neighbor has the same rights you have , no more and no more fewer .
It ’ s one thing for you to take up jiu jitsu .
It ’ s risky , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you and your opponent both accept the risks .
This doesn ’ t mean it ’ s okay to go to a concert and swing your fists and feet wildly into the crowd .
We so quickly surrendered our rights during the pandemic panic because it blurred the fist and the nose .
Most of us know the length of our arms and the distance to our neighbors ’ noses .
But what if you walk around a mall coughing up a deadly mist ?
Where ’ s the cut-off ?
What if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the noses of innocent bystanders , and infects them ?
What if they go on to infect others unaware , and millions of people die as a result ?
That ’ s a huge moral problem .
Exercising your liberty can quickly pass over into a death sentence for countless others .
“ We ’ re at war with a deadly virus , ” President Trump told Americans on March 31st .
“ Success in this fight will require the full absolute measure of our collective strength , love , and devotion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Each of us has the power through our own choices and actions to save American lives and rescue the most vulnerable among us.
” Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
Powerful stuff : more than enough to suppress the liberty-loving hackles of most Americans , at least for a while .
It ’ s one thing to defend your right to religion and peaceable assembly .
But what if by going to church , you kill the 85-year-old man sitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The thought doesn ’ t inspire one to fly a Gadsen flag and shout “ Give me liberty or give me death !
” As Senator Ted Cruz put it , “ This crisis has shown us the character of the American people .
We have seen that Americans of all walks of life are ready and willing to make sacrifices for the public good , to help stop the spread of this virus.
” The danger went beyond spreading the virus .
The whole point of “ flattening the curve ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care systems by spreading out the cases of infection .
Maybe you weren ’ t at much risk of death .
But if you had gotten sick enough to go to the hospital , you might take a bed , doctor , nurses , medicine , and equipment that would otherwise have saved the life of an old man with diabetes .
Even hoarding , which might look like greed , often involved goods we use to care for those under our protection .
Hence , not just toilet paper , but diapers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Their Own Good Weirdly , by mid-March , avoiding others became our prime directive .
“ Proximity is usually associated with intimacy , and distance with strangeness , ” noted one anthropologist at the height of the frenzy .
“ The public challenge at the moment is that we must learn to express our care and concern by maintaining distance , which is counter-intuitive.
” Indeed , this logic extended even to those who , at other times , would risk their lives to care for others .
“ It is one thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s self , ” noted Catholic priest and theologian Thomas Joseph White , “ and another thing to eradicate a nursing home in the process .
In a case like this , priests may only minister to those who are infected if they themselves are taking sufficient precautions not to infect others.
” This was a truly acute problem for Catholics .
Sermons and prayers can be delivered online .
But certain sacraments and rites can only be done in person — through physical contact .
As a result , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infect someone .
Priests place consecrated hosts in hundreds , even thousands , of hands and mouths every week .
They empty the chalice after communion by drinking what ’ s left .
The whole operation is a germophobe ’ s nightmare .
Most Catholics , and priests , take it in stride .
They stay home or at least keep their distance if they ’ re sick .
They use hand sanitizer during flu season .
Suspending public Masses , confessions , and baptisms , then , only makes sense if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if there ’ s a highly contagious and uniquely deadly virus that would probably find its way into a chalice .
Should Masses be cancelled if a virus ’ case fatality rate is one percent ?
One-tenth of one percent ?
One-one hundredth ?
It ’ s hard , if not impossible , to say .
But it ’ s no surprise that church closures and stay-at-home orders , to name only two responses , were based on the early , apocalyptic , and wildly inaccurate , predictions about the coronavirus .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priests that they had a duty not to administer the sacraments as they would in a time of war , persecution , or mass starvation .
This view persists even as public protests have started .
On April 17th , the Washington Post covered “ right-wing ” rallies in Michigan , Minnesota , and Virginia .
“ I call these people the modern-day Rosa Parks , ” reported the Post , quoting conservative economist Steve Moore .
“ They are protesting against injustice and a loss of liberties.
” Comparing Parks to defenders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two Minutes Hate on Twitter .
New York Magazine columnist Mark Harris summed up the sentiment , “ I ’ ll never forget the day Rosa Parks got on the bus with a submachine gun and refused to wear a mask because of freedom.
” Others claimed the protesters had forfeited their right to health care , and even wished sickness and death upon them .
Under Any Other Scenario … But protests are as American as apple pie .
Imagine any other scenario .
What if the president , governors , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and churches and stay home , not for the plausible good of others , but just for our own good ?
Perhaps they decided that too many of us take risks when we drive , work , or play in the park .
We would never have tolerated it !
There would have been huge , bipartisan protests from the Atlantic to the Pacific .
Conservatives would have bristled at the loss of liberty , and liberals would have denounced the fascists in the White House and the state houses .
As it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complied , for almost two months .
We ’ ve complied with the pandemic lockdown because it appeals not just to our vices — our fear and petty partisanship — but to our virtues — our love of elderly parents and fellow Americans .
Like jiu jitsu , authorities have used our moral weight to hoist us on our own petards .
The question is , how long will Americans stay seated when they realize we didn ’ t , and don ’ t , need total lock-downs to save lives ?
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more harm than good ?
Jay Richards , Ph.D. , is the Executive Editor of The Stream , a Research Assistant Professor in the Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America , and a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute .
Follow him on Twitter .

Americans take our liberty seriously. We have the idea of limited government enshrined in our founding documents. We say we don’t like the Nanny State. So, why did we agree without a fight or a protest to shelter-in-place orders? To a total lockdown?
It’s one thing to agree it would be best to work from home and avoid large crowds, or to quarantine people who are sick or at severe risk. It’s another for cities and states to order healthy, low-risk people not to go to work or church, or even to leave their houses, and to arrest them if they don’t comply. States can rightly do this only in the most extreme emergencies. Most Americans have never witnessed this, or anything like it — even in the middle of a hurricane.
Some have fretted that we complied because we’ve all become scared little snowflakes. Perhaps that explains part of it, but not much. After all, we knew in mid-March that the coronavirus poses little risk to children and healthy people under the age of 50. And we all take risks every time we leave the house.
The Lives of Others
Here’s what made the difference: We were told the lives of other people were at stake.
Your right to swing your fist, it’s said, ends at your neighbor’s nose. That’s because your neighbor has the same rights you have, no more and no fewer. It’s one thing for you to take up jiu jitsu. It’s risky, but when you enter the ring, you and your opponent both accept the risks. This doesn’t mean it’s okay to go to a concert and swing your fists and feet wildly into the crowd.
We so quickly surrendered our rights during the pandemic panic because it blurred the fist and the nose. Most of us know the length of our arms and the distance to our neighbors’ noses. But what if you walk around a mall coughing up a deadly mist? Where’s the cut-off? What if some of that mist finds its way into the noses of innocent bystanders, and infects them? What if they go on to infect others unaware, and millions of people die as a result? That’s a huge moral problem. Exercising your liberty can quickly pass over into a death sentence for countless others.
At War
“We’re at war with a deadly virus,” President Trump told Americans on March 31st. “Success in this fight will require the full absolute measure of our collective strength, love, and devotion. It’s very important. Each of us has the power through our own choices and actions to save American lives and rescue the most vulnerable among us.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Powerful stuff: more than enough to suppress the liberty-loving hackles of most Americans, at least for a while. It’s one thing to defend your right to religion and peaceable assembly. But what if by going to church, you kill the 85-year-old man sitting in the pew in front of you? The thought doesn’t inspire one to fly a Gadsen flag and shout “Give me liberty or give me death!”
As Senator Ted Cruz put it, “This crisis has shown us the character of the American people. We have seen that Americans of all walks of life are ready and willing to make sacrifices for the public good, to help stop the spread of this virus.”
The danger went beyond spreading the virus. The whole point of “flattening the curve” was to reduce pressure on the health care systems by spreading out the cases of infection. Maybe you weren’t at much risk of death. But if you had gotten sick enough to go to the hospital, you might take a bed, doctor, nurses, medicine, and equipment that would otherwise have saved the life of an old man with diabetes.
Even hoarding, which might look like greed, often involved goods we use to care for those under our protection. Hence, not just toilet paper, but diapers and hand sanitizer.
Avoiding People for Their Own Good
Weirdly, by mid-March, avoiding others became our prime directive. “Proximity is usually associated with intimacy, and distance with strangeness,” noted one anthropologist at the height of the frenzy. “The public challenge at the moment is that we must learn to express our care and concern by maintaining distance, which is counter-intuitive.”
We’ve complied with the pandemic lockdown because it appeals not just to vices — our fear and petty partisanship — but to our virtues — our love of elderly parents and fellow Americans.
Indeed, this logic extended even to those who, at other times, would risk their lives to care for others. “It is one thing to make a martyr of one’s self,” noted Catholic priest and theologian Thomas Joseph White, “and another thing to eradicate a nursing home in the process. In a case like this, priests may only minister to those who are infected if they themselves are taking sufficient precautions not to infect others.” This was a truly acute problem for Catholics. Sermons and prayers can be delivered online. But certain sacraments and rites can only be done in person — through physical contact.
As a result, there’s always some chance that a priest will infect someone. Priests place consecrated hosts in hundreds, even thousands, of hands and mouths every week. They empty the chalice after communion by drinking what’s left. The whole operation is a germophobe’s nightmare. Most Catholics, and priests, take it in stride. They stay home or at least keep their distance if they’re sick. They use hand sanitizer during flu season.
Suspending public Masses, confessions, and baptisms, then, only makes sense if the risk is extreme. For instance, if there’s a highly contagious and uniquely deadly virus that would probably find its way into a chalice.
Should Masses be cancelled if a virus’ case fatality rate is one percent? One-tenth of one percent? One-one hundredth? It’s hard, if not impossible, to say. But it’s no surprise that church closures and stay-at-home orders, to name only two responses, were based on the early, apocalyptic, and wildly inaccurate, predictions about the coronavirus. That’s how authorities persuaded even most priests that they had a duty not to administer the sacraments as they would in a time of war, persecution, or mass starvation.
The Hated Protests
This view persists even as public protests have started. On April 17th, the Washington Post covered “right-wing” rallies in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia. “I call these people the modern-day Rosa Parks,” reported the Post, quoting conservative economist Steve Moore. “They are protesting against injustice and a loss of liberties.”
Comparing Parks to defenders of the 2nd Amendment earned Moore his Two Minutes Hate on Twitter. New York Magazine columnist Mark Harris summed up the sentiment, “I’ll never forget the day Rosa Parks got on the bus with a submachine gun and refused to wear a mask because of freedom.” Others claimed the protesters had forfeited their right to health care, and even wished sickness and death upon them.
Under Any Other Scenario …
But protests are as American as apple pie. Imagine any other scenario. What if the president, governors, and mayors made us all close our businesses and churches and stay home, not for the plausible good of others, but just for our own good? Perhaps they decided that too many of us take risks when we drive, work, or play in the park.
We would never have tolerated it! There would have been huge, bipartisan protests from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Conservatives would have bristled at the loss of liberty, and liberals would have denounced the fascists in the White House and the state houses.
As it is, however, we’ve complied, for almost two months.
We’ve complied with the pandemic lockdown because it appeals not just to our vices — our fear and petty partisanship — but to our virtues — our love of elderly parents and fellow Americans. Like jiu jitsu, authorities have used our moral weight to hoist us on our own petards.
The question is, how long will Americans stay seated when they realize we didn’t, and don’t, need total lock-downs to save lives? And that some of our response has done more harm than good?
Jay Richards, Ph.D., is the Executive Editor of The Stream, a Research Assistant Professor in the Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America, and a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Follow him on Twitter.


thestream--2020-04-27--Atheist NYC Mayor De Blasio Feeds Muslims, Forgets Christians and Jews

Last Thursday , the mayor of the nation ’ s largest city pulled off an impressive trifecta .
New York ’ s Bill de Blasio furthered the establishment of Islamic norms in the USA .
He made Donald Trump look good .
And he very possibly violated the US Constitution .
How did Hizzoner pull all this off ?
De Blasio “ announced that the city will provide free halal meals to Muslims in need during the celebration of Ramadan.
” That might be as many as 500,000 meals .
Ramadan , the Muslim month of fasting from dawn to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the same day the Mayor announced his Muhammadan meals-on-wheels policy .
Halal food is that acceptable to Islamic law and dietary preferences .
New York City ’ s 8.3 million inhabitants are 57 % Christian , 7 % Jewish and only 3 % Muslim .
( The US as a whole , by the way , is 76 % Christian , 1.5 % Jewish and 0.9 % Muslim . )
Why is the Mayor picking out one of those religious groups and granting them special treatment ?
He didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money to feed the five boroughs ’ many Jews during Passover , although there are twice as many of them as Muslims there .
Nor did he hold a press conference to trumpet gratis Gotham grub for followers of Christ during Lent .
And note there are almost 5 million Christians in the city , as opposed to only 250,000 Muslims .
What gives ?
Why would an agnostic chief executive so blatantly throw his city ’ s support behind a small minority of Muslims ?
There are several major reason for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radio interview last week .
There ’ s a strong anti-Christian intellectual strand on the Left , going back to the Enlightenment and coming up through Marx and the post-modernists .
In this worldview the only oppressive religious structure in history has been the Church .
Mainly the Catholic variety , but at times Protestant ones .
In the Left ’ s worldview this long ago was linked to European imperialism .
It ’ s now an article of faith among “ woke ” “ progressives ” that Christianity is a white religion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This despite the millions of black African ( and American ) Christians , or pale-skinned Iranian and Turkish Muslims .
Thus Muslims are deemed always and forever oppressed , automatically good and worthy of support .
Democrats Islamophilia has further intensified this millennium , for two major reasons .
The irreligious have taken over the Democrat Party .
And they detest conservative leaders like George W. Bush and Donald Trump , as well as outlets like Fox News , for daring to buck this trend and speak up for the Christian majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only highlighted the differences for the Left .
Obama not only turned almost every foreign trip into one of apologetic atonement for America and the West .
He also favored , indeed promoted , massive Muslim immigration into this country .
So De Blasio ’ s debasement must be seen in this context .
The Democrat Party , especially in large urban areas , has become the de facto anti-Christian , pro-Islam party .
Minneapolis ’ Democrat Mayor approved the Muslim call to prayer being broadcast five times a day , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City Council of Paterson , NJ , did likewise .
Muslims DO Have Right to Worship—but Not to Special Treatment Don ’ t get me wrong .
Unlike some on the Right , I disagree with the view that “ Islam is not a religion.
” It most certainly is .
The world ’ s most political , and too-often violent , one .
But nonetheless a religion .
And as such , Muslims have every right under the US Constitution to practice their faith .
What they do not have , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is , unfortunately , what many of them expect .
Most Muslims — certainly those not raised in the West — are taught that being ruled by non-Muslims is at best a temporary situation .
One that should be changed as soon as possible .
The idea that Islam can exist as a minority , long-term , is not entertained .
( Hence the problems in France and the UK with Muslim enclaves . )
So when the head of this country ’ s largest city brags publicly that he will use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holy period , he ’ s strengthening this intolerant viewpoint .
It ’ s not simply “ whataboutism ” to ask why Jews and Christians didn ’ t receive the same consideration .
De Blasio is indeed reinforcing Islamic expectation of special treatment .
And demands for such in the future .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
You know who predicted this ?
President Trump .
The week before the Big Apple ’ s big cheese decided to play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Jews and Christians “ no free food for you !
— the President had asked whether Muslims would get special treatment from some leaders during the pandemic .
And lo and behold — De Blasio delivered on cue .
This should come as no surprise , considering how many other things Trump has been right about .
Finally : Hizzoner ’ s obsequiousness toward Islam might very well be unconstitutional .
I ’ m a doctor ( of philosophy ) , not a lawyer .
But Everson v. Board of Education of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxes can not be used to support religious activities .
And Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU ( 1989 ) ruled that a government-funded Christmas Nativity scene was forbidden , as it endorsed Christianity .
( You can find both cases , and others , here . )
Under those precedents , don ’ t De Blasio ’ s tax-funded Ramadan meals likewise violate the US Constitution ?
In the final analysis , New York City ’ s Mayor is acting as a dhimmi , a second-class citizen under Islamic law expected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political and religious betters .
If Dhimblasio wants to live his personal life as such , more power to him .
But he shouldn ’ t be allowed to get away with making America ’ s largest city in toto subservient to Islamic law .
Non-Muslims do still have rights — at least for now .
Timothy Furnish holds a Ph.D. in Islamic , World and African history .
He is a former U.S. Army Arabic linguist and , later , civilian consultant to U.S. Special Operations Command .
He ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Middle-earth ; a history professor ; and sometime media opiner ( as , for example , on Fox News Channel ’ s War Stories : Fighting ISIS ) .

Last Thursday, the mayor of the nation’s largest city pulled off an impressive trifecta. New York’s Bill de Blasio furthered the establishment of Islamic norms in the U.S. He made Donald Trump look good. And he very possibly violated the U.S. Constitution.
How did Hizzoner pull all this off?
Meals-on-Wheels — But Only for Muslims?
De Blasio “announced that the city will provide free halal meals to Muslims in need during the celebration of Ramadan.” That might be as many as 500,000 meals. Ramadan, the Muslim month of fasting from dawn to dusk, began April 23. That’s the same day the Mayor announced his Muhammadan meals-on-wheels policy. Halal food is that acceptable to Islamic law and dietary preferences.
New York City’s 8.3 million inhabitants are 57% Christian, 7% Jewish and only 3% Muslim. (The U.S. as a whole, by the way, is 76% Christian, 1.5% Jewish and 0.9% Muslim.) Why is the Mayor picking out one of those religious groups and granting them special treatment? He didn’t offer to use state taxpayer’s money to feed the five boroughs’ many Jews during Passover, although there are twice as many of them as Muslims there. Nor did he hold a press conference to trumpet gratis Gotham grub for followers of Christ during Lent. And note there are almost 5 million Christians in the city, as opposed to only 250,000 Muslims.
What gives? Why would an agnostic chief executive so blatantly throw his city’s support behind a small minority of Muslims?
Reasons for Liberal Islamophilia
There are several major reason for this, as I explained in a long radio interview last week. There’s a strong anti-Christian intellectual strand on the Left, going back to the Enlightenment and coming up through Marx and the post-modernists. In this worldview the only oppressive religious structure in history has been the Church. Mainly the Catholic variety, but at times Protestant ones. In the Left’s worldview this long ago was linked to European imperialism. It’s now an article of faith among “woke” “progressives” that Christianity is a white religion, Islam a brown or black one. This despite the millions of black African (and American) Christians, or pale-skinned Iranian and Turkish Muslims. Thus Muslims are deemed always and forever oppressed, automatically good and worthy of support.
Democrats Islamophilia has further intensified this millennium, for two major reasons. The irreligious have taken over the Democrat Party. And they detest conservative leaders like George W. Bush and Donald Trump, as well as outlets like Fox News, for daring to buck this trend and speak up for the Christian majority. Barack Obama’s 8-year interregnum only highlighted the differences for the Left. Obama not only turned almost every foreign trip into one of apologetic atonement for America and the West. He also favored, indeed promoted, massive Muslim immigration into this country.
So de Blasio’s debasement must be seen in this context. The Democrat Party, especially in large urban areas, has become the de facto anti-Christian, pro-Islam party. Minneapolis’ Democrat Mayor approved the Muslim call to prayer being broadcast five times a day, in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood. The Democrat Mayor and City Council of Paterson, N.J., did likewise.
Muslims Do Have Right to Worship — but Not to Special Treatment
Don’t get me wrong. Unlike some on the Right, I disagree with the view that “Islam is not a religion.” It most certainly is. The world’s most political, and too-often violent, one. But nonetheless a religion. And as such, Muslims have every right under the U.S. Constitution to practice their faith.
What they do not have, however, is a right to favoritism. That is, unfortunately, what many of them expect. Most Muslims — certainly those not raised in the West — are taught that being ruled by non-Muslims is at best a temporary situation. One that should be changed as soon as possible. The idea that Islam can exist as a minority, long-term, is not entertained. (Hence the problems in France and the U.K. with Muslim enclaves.)
So when the head of this country’s largest city brags publicly that he will use public funds to feed Muslims during their holy period, he’s strengthening this intolerant viewpoint. It’s not simply “whataboutism” to ask why Jews and Christians didn’t receive the same consideration. De Blasio is indeed reinforcing Islamic expectation of special treatment. And demands for such in the future.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
You know who predicted this? President Trump. The week before the Big Apple’s big cheese decided to play Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi — declaring to Jews and Christians “no free food for you!” — the President had asked whether Muslims would get special treatment from some leaders during the pandemic. And lo and behold — de Blasio delivered on cue. This should come as no surprise, considering how many other things Trump has been right about.
Are de Blasio’s Actions Unconstitutional?
Finally: Hizzoner’s obsequiousness toward Islam might very well be unconstitutional. I’m a doctor (of philosophy), not a lawyer. But Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP (1947) said that taxes cannot be used to support religious activities. And Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (1989) ruled that a government-funded Christmas Nativity scene was forbidden, as it endorsed Christianity. (You can find both cases, and others, here.)
Under those precedents, don’t de Blasio’s tax-funded Ramadan meals likewise violate the U.S. Constitution?
In the final analysis, New York City’s Mayor is acting as a dhimmi, a second-class citizen under Islamic law expected to bend the knee to his social, political and religious betters. If Dhimblasio wants to live his personal life as such, more power to him. But he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with making America’s largest city in toto subservient to Islamic law. Non-Muslims do still have rights — at least for now.
Timothy Furnish holds a Ph.D. in Islamic, World and African history. He is a former U.S. Army Arabic linguist and, later, civilian consultant to U.S. Special Operations Command. He’s the author of books on the Middle East and Middle-earth; a history professor; and sometime media opiner (as, for example, on Fox News Channel’s War Stories: Fighting ISIS).
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--2020-04-27--COVID-19 and International Best Practices for Free, Fair and Safe Elections

This pandemic may seem like it ’ s changed everything , but it has not changed the rules of our constitutional republic .
Let ’ s keep it that way .
At the moment , there is a movement afoot to junk in-person voting , the manner in which the vast majority of American ballots have been cast since before the American Revolution .
The radicals behind this , aided by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the federal level , and echoed by some elected officials in a number of states , are using the pandemic as cover for bald-faced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic to instill fear in our electoral process , forcing a solution for a problem that doesn ’ t exist — namely , that people won ’ t be able to get to the polls because of the coronavirus .
This is a patently false assumption , as other countries have learned in similar crises .
And , it was not the case in America in 1918 during the outbreak of Spanish Flu pandemic .
Transparently , the motive behind junking in-person voting this November is that big government liberal believe doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi even tried to condition urgently-needed coronavirus relief on a wish list of long-standing electioneering aims , including same-day voter registration , legalized “ ballot harvesting , ” and mandatory early mail-in voting .
Fortunately , congressional guardians of the U.S. Constitution stymied that scheme .
Had Speaker Pelosi gotten her way , states would effectively have been forced to abandon the common-sense measures they currently have in place which prevent fraudulent voting while extending the 2020 elections from one day to a month-long process .
Political strategists on the left believe this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , regain the majority in the Senate and keep Mrs. Pelosi Speaker .
Despite Speaker Pelosi ’ s setback on Capitol Hill , the left ’ s crusade to radically transform the very nature of the coming elections continues unabated , with liberal activist groups trying to advance Pelosi ’ s fumble .
The partisan motives behind these recent electoral “ reform ” proposals , along with the manifest opportunities for voter fraud and coercion they present — such as giving partisan activists absolute control over physical ballots — are reason enough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another glaring issue that ’ s worth pointing out : contrary to their proponents ’ efforts to present them as a necessary concession to the coronavirus pandemic , the new voting procedures are clearly unnecessary from a public health perspective .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
The United States has the world ’ s most mature and developed democratic system , and an extraordinary amount of resources to tackle the problems the coronavirus creates .
This pandemic isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization of which I am a board member , the International Foundation for Electoral Systems ( IFES ) , has been involved in similar situations before around the globe .
While IFES is not involved in domestic elections , it is recognized internationally as a thought leader in election administration .
In 2014 , as the Ebola virus raged in West Africa , the country of Liberia was slated to hold a crucial election .
Some argued that in-person voting should be suspended , but that could have thrown the legitimacy of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibility of widespread fraud .
Instead , IFES was able to help develop protocols for voters and poll workers that kept them safe while allowing Liberians to participate in a free , fair , and in-person election .
That was the right call in Liberia .
Maintaining electoral continuity almost always is .
If the rules of the game are allowed to change at the last minute — especially in a way that even seems to benefit one political party over its opposition — democracy itself is cheapened and delegitimized .
If They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Liberia was able to safely hold an in-person election amidst an Ebola outbreak , there is no reason we can not do so here in the United States in the wake of this pandemic .
It will take planning , resources , and carefully-developed protocols , but adhering to our existing set of electoral rules is well worth the effort .
Besides , there ’ s no question that America has the resources and institutional knowledge to make this work .
In our work abroad , IFES has already worked to create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in countries dealing with coronavirus outbreaks .
If they can do it , so can we .
Even after the worst of this crisis is over , some aspects of our daily lives will be forever altered .
We can ’ t let the coronavirus take away the integrity of our elections .
It ’ s just too important !
Ken Blackwell served as mayor of Cincinnati , Ohio , Ohio Secretary of State and U.S. ambassador to U.N. Human Right Commission .
He currently serves on the National Leadership Council of the @ @ @ @ @

This pandemic may seem like it’s changed everything, but it has not changed the rules of our constitutional republic. Let’s keep it that way.
At the moment, there is a movement afoot to junk in-person voting, the manner in which the vast majority of American ballots have been cast since before the American Revolution. The radicals behind this, aided by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the federal level, and echoed by some elected officials in a number of states, are using the pandemic as cover for bald-faced partisan skullduggery.
They’re exploiting the pandemic to instill fear in our electoral process, forcing a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist — namely, that people won’t be able to get to the polls because of the coronavirus. This is a patently false assumption, as other countries have learned in similar crises. And, it was not the case in America in 1918 during the outbreak of Spanish Flu pandemic.
Abandoning Common-Sense Measures
Transparently, the motive behind junking in-person voting this November is that big government liberal believe doing so will help them win. Speaker Pelosi even tried to condition urgently-needed coronavirus relief on a wish list of long-standing electioneering aims, including same-day voter registration, legalized “ballot harvesting,” and mandatory early mail-in voting. Fortunately, congressional guardians of the U.S. Constitution stymied that scheme.
Had Speaker Pelosi gotten her way, states would effectively have been forced to abandon the common-sense measures they currently have in place which prevent fraudulent voting while extending the 2020 elections from one day to a month-long process. Political strategists on the left believe this will help them defeat President Donald Trump, regain the majority in the Senate and keep Mrs. Pelosi Speaker.
Despite Speaker Pelosi’s setback on Capitol Hill, the left’s crusade to radically transform the very nature of the coming elections continues unabated, with liberal activist groups trying to advance Pelosi’s fumble.
Reasons to Oppose Electoral ‘Reform’ Proposals
The partisan motives behind these recent electoral “reform” proposals, along with the manifest opportunities for voter fraud and coercion they present — such as giving partisan activists absolute control over physical ballots — are reason enough to oppose them.
But there’s another glaring issue that’s worth pointing out: contrary to their proponents’ efforts to present them as a necessary concession to the coronavirus pandemic, the new voting procedures are clearly unnecessary from a public health perspective.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The United States has the world’s most mature and developed democratic system, and an extraordinary amount of resources to tackle the problems the coronavirus creates. This pandemic isn’t even uncharted ground. The bipartisan organization of which I am a board member, the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), has been involved in similar situations before around the globe. While IFES is not involved in domestic elections, it is recognized internationally as a thought leader in election administration.
The Right Call
In 2014, as the Ebola virus raged in West Africa, the country of Liberia was slated to hold a crucial election. Some argued that in-person voting should be suspended, but that could have thrown the legitimacy of the results into question due to the mere possibility of widespread fraud. Instead, IFES was able to help develop protocols for voters and poll workers that kept them safe while allowing Liberians to participate in a free, fair, and in-person election.
That was the right call in Liberia. Maintaining electoral continuity almost always is. If the rules of the game are allowed to change at the last minute — especially in a way that even seems to benefit one political party over its opposition — democracy itself is cheapened and delegitimized.
If They Can Do It, So Can We
If Liberia was able to safely hold an in-person election amidst an Ebola outbreak, there is no reason we cannot do so here in the United States in the wake of this pandemic. It will take planning, resources, and carefully-developed protocols, but adhering to our existing set of electoral rules is well worth the effort.
Besides, there’s no question that America has the resources and institutional knowledge to make this work. In our work abroad, IFES has already worked to create an effective protocol for holding in-person elections in countries dealing with coronavirus outbreaks. If they can do it, so can we.
Even after the worst of this crisis is over, some aspects of our daily lives will be forever altered. We can’t let the coronavirus take away the integrity of our elections. It’s just too important!
Ken Blackwell served as mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio, Ohio Secretary of State and U.S. ambassador to U.N. Human Right Commission. He currently serves on the National Leadership Council of the Save Our Country Coalition.


thestream--2020-04-27--The Left’s ‘Good’ Is Bad

The Left’s ‘Good’ Is Bad

Our cultural divisions keep going , even in a time like today when we ought to be pulling together .
Why can ’ t we agree to do what ’ s right and good ?
It ’ s because we can ’ t come close to agreeing on what actually is right or good .
Over the weekend I ran into one of the most perfect illustrations of that difference I ’ ve ever seen .
It ’ s found in John Loftus ’ s latest atheist compilation , The Case Against Miracles .
I ’ ll warn you , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odd enough that you may find it mildly entertaining , though it ’ s also more than mildly disturbing .
The oddest thing of all is how openly it displays a false and destructive view of what “ good ” means .
It ’ s in a chapter written by Professor Matthew McCormick of Cal State Sacramento ( Sac State ) , who advances the odd argument that God would never do miracles .
If a miracle ever happened , it would prove there ’ s no God .
( I told you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t do all the “ good ” with His miracles McCormick thinks a “ good ” God would do ; therefore , poof , there is no God .
We need not waste time here showing why he ’ s wrong ; It ’ s obvious enough , and I ’ ve done part of that work elsewhere .
What matters here is the sort of “ good ” McCormick apparently thinks God should be doing , if there were a God .
The “ Good ” This Atheist Thinks God Should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says God doesn ’ t measure up .
• “ While Jesus turns water into wine and one party , thousands or millions of other parties go dry.
” • “ I want to know why he was hanging out at a party , making it go better… when he could have been healing lepers.
” • “ Suppose a miraculous event heals all the suffering in the world today .
A [ truly good God ] would have done it sooner .
Why not yesterday ?
And why not in Auschwitz or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God wanted us to believe and to behave better , “ it would have been a simple matter to directly implant belief into all people ’ s minds.
” • God is “ an underachiever ” if he doesn ’ t do all this good .
So , Jesus didn ’ t supply all the refreshments for every party , and didn ’ t heal every disease .
God messed up ( says McCormick ) by allowing disease and evil in the first place .
He should have prevented it all , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it easily enough ( if God existed , of course ) , just by implanting true belief and right motivations in our minds in the first place .
The So-Called “ Good , ” Where Virtue Means Literally Nothing Here then is the vision McCormick presents of the ultimate good , the good God himself should strive for : Everything is easy , safe , and comfortable .
God takes care of everything for us .
Not today , but yesterday , long before any need even crosses our minds .
Nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lacking .
I can ’ t tell you how viscerally I disagree .
Which is polite-speak for , it makes me sick .
To my stomach .
This is not a good world .
Not even close .
It ’ s certainly not good in a Christian view of reality , but also not even in what I would call a human view .
It ’ s a world lacking in human responsibility .
It has no place in it for virtue of any kind .
No courage is needed .
No love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no such thing as patience , not with God , not with nature , and ( since no one lacks anything they could want or desire ) not even with each other .
One might have to practice a virtue like moderation in this world , to avoid getting fat with unlimited food available .
But then , why bother , when God prevents every disease ?
And what kind of virtue would it be , anyway , if God just implants the behavior in your mind ?
It wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the slightest degree .
You wouldn ’ t even know it as a virtue , since there ’ d be no difference or distinction associated with it .
Who would know what “ love ” means , if everyone loved equally and perfectly ?
What would “ good ” mean to us , if we knew nothing of “ better ” or “ worse ” ?
These are comparative terms , and there ’ d be nothing to compare them to .
We wouldn ’ t even know the meaning of God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
What ’ s love ?
What does that word mean ?
” “ I ’ m sure glad God was good enough to make us a world without suffering.
” “ Suffering ?
What ’ s that ?
What are you even talking about ?
And what ’ s this word ‘ good ’ ?
I ’ ve never heard it before.
” The Left vs. the Right on What is Good This is what McCormick would call “ good ” : People always get what they want , responsibility is out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing .
Sound familiar ?
It should .
Of course it ’ s an imaginary world , yet we can almost see the Left wishing it were that way .
( I don ’ t know whether McCormick would describe himself as politically progressive , though he is clearly in support of atheism , which is demographically highly associated with the Left . )
Progressives are certainly pushing culture in that direction : Enjoy sex all you want , with no responsibility attached to it .
Treat earned success with scorn .
Give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , health care , college , U.S. residency , whatever — just because they want it .
Satisfy all desires , even if the person ’ s desire is to be a different person altogether .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
Christianity has a completely different picture of the good .
( All the major religions do , but I ’ ll stick with speaking about the one I know best , the one I affirm , the one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence on conservatism . )
For Christianity , the primary good is God , and ultimate satisfaction is based in Him and His goodness .
Earthly good is first and foremost a matter of virtue .
It ’ s something we ’ re called to be in the inside , not something external we ’ ve been granted to experience .
It isn ’ t achievable without some loss or pain ( see Romans 5:3-5 and James 1:2-4 , among many others ) , so a pain-free earthly experience couldn ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every seriously successful student knows this .
They know the rewards of discipline , and with faith they can also see the character-building value of God ’ s own curriculum of discipline for us ( Hebrews 12:1-11 ) .
This is at the core of what is good , on a Christian view of the world , with which Western conservatism largely agrees .
It ’ s not the only good , for clearly the Bible supports both acquiring and sharing the means to a pleasant earthly experience .
But it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goods become empty , meaningless , or as one Preacher put it , futility ( Eccles .
1:2 ) .
McCormick ’ s picture of the good is exaggerated and unreal , perhaps intentionally so , in order to make his argument about God and miracles .
Nevertheless his view of what counts as “ good ” comes through clearly , and it shows more clearly , by way of illustration , what the Left is pursuing as good .
And it helps us see just how desperate the culture war is .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the same thing — seats in Congress , the presidency , control over the media or the economy .
It ’ s two sides with diametrically opposite goals : Personal comfort and convenience as primary goods for the Left , with minimal responsibility and only those virtues that lend toward that goal , vs. growth in virtue as the primary good on the right , and with comfort and convenience as secondary to that .
There is very little common ground here .
If the Left wins , the right loses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Left wins , humanity loses , for in this case the Right is right .
To lose track of virtue is to lose track of what it means to be uniquely human .
The Left ’ s view of “ the good ” isn ’ t just another alternative .
It ’ s a bad one .
Tom Gilson ( @ TomGilsonAuthor ) is a senior editor with The Stream , and the author of A Christian Mind : Thoughts on Life and Truth in Jesus Christ and Critical Conversations : A Christian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Teens , and the lead editor of True Reason : Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism .

Our cultural divisions keep going, even in a time like today when we ought to be pulling together. Why can’t we agree to do what’s right and good? It’s because we can’t come close to agreeing on what actually is right or good.
Over the weekend I ran into one of the most perfect illustrations of that difference I’ve ever seen. It’s found in John Loftus’s latest atheist compilation, The Case Against Miracles. I’ll warn you, this is going to sound odd — odd enough that you may find it mildly entertaining, though it’s also more than mildly disturbing. The oddest thing of all is how openly it displays a false and destructive view of what “good” means.
It’s in a chapter written by Professor Matthew McCormick of Cal State Sacramento (Sac State), who advances the odd argument that God would never do miracles. If a miracle ever happened, it would prove there’s no God. (I told you it was odd.) God doesn’t do all the “good” with His miracles McCormick thinks a “good” God would do; therefore, poof, there is no God.
We need not waste time here showing why he’s wrong; It’s obvious enough, and I’ve done part of that work elsewhere. What matters here is the sort of “good” McCormick apparently thinks God should be doing, if there were a God.
The “Good” This Atheist Thinks God Should Be Doing
It shows up where McCormick says God doesn’t measure up.
What matters here is the sort of “good” McCormick thinks God should be doing, if there were a God.
“While Jesus turns water into wine and one party, thousands or millions of other parties go dry.”
“I want to know why he was hanging out at a party, making it go better… when he could have been healing lepers.”
“Suppose a miraculous event heals all the suffering in the world today. A [truly good God] would have done it sooner. Why not yesterday? And why not in Auschwitz or Dachau in 1945?”
If God wanted us to believe and to behave better, “it would have been a simple matter to directly implant belief into all people’s minds.”
God is “an underachiever” if he doesn’t do all this good.
So, Jesus didn’t supply all the refreshments for every party, and didn’t heal every disease. God messed up (says McCormick) by allowing disease and evil in the first place. He should have prevented it all, and he could have done a good bit of it easily enough (if God existed, of course), just by implanting true belief and right motivations in our minds in the first place.
The So-Called “Good,” Where Virtue Means Literally Nothing
Here then is the vision McCormick presents of the ultimate good, the good God himself should strive for: Everything is easy, safe, and comfortable. God takes care of everything for us. Not today, but yesterday, long before any need even crosses our minds. Nothing we could possibly want would ever be lacking.
I can’t tell you how viscerally I disagree. Which is polite-speak for, it makes me sick. To my stomach.
The Left’s view of “the good” isn’t just another alternative. It’s a bad one.
This is not a good world. Not even close. It’s certainly not good in a Christian view of reality, but also not even in what I would call a human view. It’s a world lacking in human responsibility. It has no place in it for virtue of any kind. No courage is needed. No love. Self-sacrifice means nothing. There’s no such thing as patience, not with God, not with nature, and (since no one lacks anything they could want or desire) not even with each other.
One might have to practice a virtue like moderation in this world, to avoid getting fat with unlimited food available. But then, why bother, when God prevents every disease? And what kind of virtue would it be, anyway, if God just implants the behavior in your mind? It wouldn’t be your own virtue, not even in the slightest degree. You wouldn’t even know it as a virtue, since there’d be no difference or distinction associated with it.
“What’s This Word ‘Good’?”
Who would know what “love” means, if everyone loved equally and perfectly? What would “good” mean to us, if we knew nothing of “better” or “worse”? These are comparative terms, and there’d be nothing to compare them to. We wouldn’t even know the meaning of God’s own virtues:
“God is love.”
“Huh? What’s love? What does that word mean?”
Or,
“I’m sure glad God was good enough to make us a world without suffering.”
“Suffering? What’s that? What are you even talking about? And what’s this word ‘good’? I’ve never heard it before.”
The Left vs. the Right on What is Good
This is what McCormick would call “good”: People always get what they want, responsibility is out the window, and virtue means literally nothing. Sound familiar? It should.
Of course it’s an imaginary world, yet we can almost see the Left wishing it were that way. (I don’t know whether McCormick would describe himself as politically progressive, though he is clearly in support of atheism, which is demographically highly associated with the Left.) Progressives are certainly pushing culture in that direction: Enjoy sex all you want, with no responsibility attached to it. Treat earned success with scorn. Give people what they want instead — money, health care, college, U.S. residency, whatever — just because they want it. Satisfy all desires, even if the person’s desire is to be a different person altogether.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Christianity has a completely different picture of the good. (All the major religions do, but I’ll stick with speaking about the one I know best, the one I affirm, the one that’s also had the major influence on conservatism.) For Christianity, the primary good is God, and ultimate satisfaction is based in Him and His goodness. Earthly good is first and foremost a matter of virtue. It’s something we’re called to be in the inside, not something external we’ve been granted to experience.
It isn’t achievable without some loss or pain (see Romans 5:3-5 and James 1:2-4, among many others), so a pain-free earthly experience couldn’t be good after all. Every athlete, every seriously successful student knows this. They know the rewards of discipline, and with faith they can also see the character-building value of God’s own curriculum of discipline for us (Hebrews 12:1-11).
The Left’s “Good” is Bad
This is at the core of what is good, on a Christian view of the world, with which Western conservatism largely agrees. It’s not the only good, for clearly the Bible supports both acquiring and sharing the means to a pleasant earthly experience. But it’s the primary good, without which other goods become empty, meaningless, or as one Preacher put it, futility (Eccles. 1:2).
McCormick’s picture of the good is exaggerated and unreal, perhaps intentionally so, in order to make his argument about God and miracles. Nevertheless his view of what counts as “good” comes through clearly, and it shows more clearly, by way of illustration, what the Left is pursuing as good.
And it helps us see just how desperate the culture war is. It isn’t two sides tussling for the same thing — seats in Congress, the presidency, control over the media or the economy. It’s two sides with diametrically opposite goals: Personal comfort and convenience as primary goods for the Left, with minimal responsibility and only those virtues that lend toward that goal, vs. growth in virtue as the primary good on the right, and with comfort and convenience as secondary to that.
There is very little common ground here. If the Left wins, the right loses, and vice versa. Except if the Left wins, humanity loses, for in this case the Right is right. To lose track of virtue is to lose track of what it means to be uniquely human. The Left’s view of “the good” isn’t just another alternative. It’s a bad one.
Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) is a senior editor with The Stream, and the author of A Christian Mind: Thoughts on Life and Truth in Jesus Christ and Critical Conversations: A Christian Parent’s Guide to Discussing Homosexuality with Teens, and the lead editor of True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism.


thestream--2020-04-27--God Will Restore Our Blessings, But Our Trust Must Be in Him

While speaking recently with Christian leaders , James Robison was asked about what to expect when the coronavirus pandemic is @ @ @ @ @ his answer .
He offers a message of encouragement , as well as a challenge @ @ @ @ @ .

While speaking recently with Christian leaders, James Robison was asked about what to expect when the coronavirus pandemic is over. Listen here to his answer. He offers a message of encouragement, as well as a challenge for how we should respond.
James Robison is The Stream’s founder and publisher. He is co-founder of LIFE Outreach International and co-host of LIFE Today. He’s the author of many books, including Indivisible (with Jay Richards) and Living Amazed.
React to This Article What do you think of our coverage in this article? We value your feedback as we continue to grow.


thestream--2020-04-27--Some Honest Questions About the Danger and Extent of COVID-19

Dr. Everett Piper , a respected evangelical educator , recently tweeted out a link to a lengthy article and made this startling claim : “ I posted a COVID19 article yesterday and said it was most important article of the day .
THIS ONE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLE OF THE YEAR !
Must read !
Must share .
Must follow this advice !
!
” The article , nearly 5,000 words long and primarily written by David Williams , a medical doctor , challenges much of the conventional thinking concerning COVID-19 .
Are Drs .
Piper and Williams correct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to the virus terribly wrong ?
As I stated in a recent article , I have neither the medical nor the educational qualifications to comment with expertise on the virus or our response to it .
As for my attitude towards the government , I have both trust and distrust .
That ’ s because I believe there are sincere , God-fearing people serving in our government as well as others with ulterior or even nefarious motives .
Plus , there are sincere , well-intentioned people in the government whose ideologies I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a priori assumptions for or against governmental policies .
They must be evaluated on their merits .
The purpose , then , of this article is to ask some honest questions of Dr. Williams and Dr. Piper for the sake of improved understanding .
And I ask with the utmost respect .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
And No Fear .
But first , let me summarize the claims of Dr. Williams and his co-authors .
( Dr. Williams wrote : “ Although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being written on behalf of multiple physicians in West Alabama and will be distributed through multiple medical offices .
Between us we have well over a hundred years of practice and have treated hundreds of thousands of patients suffering infectious diseases .
Including mission trips we have treated patients on five continents.
” ) According to the article , the following are lies : • “ We don ’ t know much about coronavirus.
” To the contrary , “ We know it mutates and evolves just like the flu .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has in SARS and MERS.
” • “ COVID-19 is more infectious than influenza.
” The authors argue that the reverse is true .
• “ COVID-19 is more dangerous than influenza.
” This is simply a “ lie of the medically uninformed.
” • “ The fact one doesn ’ t know he or she has COVID-19 makes it more dangerous.
” Instead , “ All viruses shed and are primarily spread while the infected host is asymptomatic.
” The article also claims these as truths ( this is just an excerpt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost impossible for anyone in the general public or general medical community to know the actual number of deaths from COVID-19.
” Because of this , we need to be very wary of the data that is being presented .
• “ The current policies instituted by our local , state , and national governments are causing greater health problems than the virus ever will.
” • “ The media as a whole has grossly misrepresented this disease.
” • “ The way in which the media has pushed fear nonstop amounts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The media will continue to fight reopening of this country by stating ‘ experts ’ predict a spike in deaths if we do so.
” • “ Not every country has shut down their economy , and none of those countries have suffered higher rates of death because they have kept their economy going.
” • “ Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is making a fortune , and he wants you to stay home.
” • “ COVID-19 has been treated like a world-ender ; it ’ s not even remotely close.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis , but a political crisis.
” • “ If you love your children , enjoy sports , or know anyone who owns or is employed by a small business you should be angry.
” Yes , you should be very angry .
“ We can absolutely take steps to protect the elderly and vulnerable , but everything should reopen immediately.
” There are some “ opinions ” offered in the article as well , but enough has been cited to lay the foundation for my questions .
And again , I ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • If COVID-19 is no more deadly than normal influenza , why do so many of us know someone who died of COVID-19 ?
I ’ m 65 years old now , and I can ’ t remember the last friend ( or friend of a friend ) who died of the flu .
But already , among those who have passed away , I can personally count an old friend ( an active , 74-year-old ) , a close friend of a friend ( also very active , in his early 60s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close friends ( I believe in their 60s as well ) .
In other words , in my immediate circle of friends and their friends , in the last few weeks , four have died of COVID-19 , whereas I can ’ t remember anyone I know dying of the flu in many years ( decades ? )
.
What does that imply ?
• If COVID-19 is no more deadly or contagious than normal influenza , why has it had such a devastating effect on the ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities , especially in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flu every year , as do other communities , but the fatalities and serious complications from COVID-19 seem drastically different than during the normal flu season .
Why is that ?
One ultra-Orthodox website features a COVID19 Live Blog , COVID19 Tehillim Names ( Tehillim means Psalms ; these are people with the virus who are being prayed for ) ; and a COVID19 Activity List .
The website also features obituaries of victims , including rabbis in their 30s and 40s .
Does this strike you as surprising ?
• A friend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the tragic stories coming from his part of the world , including firsthand accounts of a number of pastors who died of the disease .
Here too , the numbers seem disproportionately higher than during the normal flu season .
Why is that ?
• Why did countries other than America , including Israel , go to such extreme lengths to shut down their nations , knowing the terrible financial damage that would ensue ?
And why did Singapore , praised for its approach in the earlier weeks , have to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days as the disease has skyrocketed among the migrant workers ?
( See here and here for details . )
• A healthcare giver from the UK asked , “ if it ’ s less infectious than flu and doesn ’ t make the average under 60 person sick … why have almost all the staff where I work been off with it ?
Fortunately the last of us is coming back to work now so we can get on with our jobs , looking after the elderly .
This disease has taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep it out.
” Does this surprise you at all ?
To say it once more , these are honest questions I have .
And I have them precisely because I am lacking the necessary expertise to sort through the competing claims .
Also , in no way am I defending all of our government ’ s decisions .
And I have openly criticized the overreach of some local leaders .
In addition , I recognize that many people have their own agendas , including political and financial .
Those agendas could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking some honest , “ layman ” type questions .
I imagine I am not the only reader of this important article that has similar questions .
To any who can respond , thanks in advance for your time .
And thanks for all you are doing for the good of the nation .
Dr. Michael Brown ( www.askdrbrown.org ) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program .
His latest book is When the World Stops : Words of Faith , Hope , and Wisdom in the Midst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook , Twitter or YouTube .

Dr. Everett Piper, a respected evangelical educator, recently tweeted out a link to a lengthy article and made this startling claim: “I posted a COVID19 article yesterday and said it was most important article of the day. THIS ONE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLE OF THE YEAR! Must read! Must share. Must follow this advice!!” The article, nearly 5,000 words long and primarily written by David Williams, a medical doctor, challenges much of the conventional thinking concerning COVID-19.
Are Drs. Piper and Williams correct? If so, is our national response to the virus terribly wrong?
No Assumptions
As I stated in a recent article, I have neither the medical nor the educational qualifications to comment with expertise on the virus or our response to it.
As for my attitude towards the government, I have both trust and distrust. That’s because I believe there are sincere, God-fearing people serving in our government as well as others with ulterior or even nefarious motives. Plus, there are sincere, well-intentioned people in the government whose ideologies I reject.
So, I make no a priori assumptions for or against governmental policies. They must be evaluated on their merits.
The purpose, then, of this article is to ask some honest questions of Dr. Williams and Dr. Piper for the sake of improved understanding. And I ask with the utmost respect.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
But first, let me summarize the claims of Dr. Williams and his co-authors. (Dr. Williams wrote: “Although there is a central author, it is being written on behalf of multiple physicians in West Alabama and will be distributed through multiple medical offices. Between us we have well over a hundred years of practice and have treated hundreds of thousands of patients suffering infectious diseases. Including mission trips we have treated patients on five continents.”)
The Claims
According to the article, the following are lies:
“We don’t know much about coronavirus.” To the contrary, “We know it mutates and evolves just like the flu. We know it sometimes becomes deadly as it has in SARS and MERS.”
“COVID-19 is more infectious than influenza.” The authors argue that the reverse is true.
“COVID-19 is more dangerous than influenza.” This is simply a “lie of the medically uninformed.”
“The fact one doesn’t know he or she has COVID-19 makes it more dangerous.” Instead, “All viruses shed and are primarily spread while the infected host is asymptomatic.”
The article also claims these as truths (this is just an excerpt):
“It is now almost impossible for anyone in the general public or general medical community to know the actual number of deaths from COVID-19.” Because of this, we need to be very wary of the data that is being presented.
“The current policies instituted by our local, state, and national governments are causing greater health problems than the virus ever will.”
“The media as a whole has grossly misrepresented this disease.”
“The way in which the media has pushed fear nonstop amounts to psychological warfare against this country.”
“The media will continue to fight reopening of this country by stating ‘experts’ predict a spike in deaths if we do so.”
“Not every country has shut down their economy, and none of those countries have suffered higher rates of death because they have kept their economy going.”
“Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is making a fortune, and he wants you to stay home.”
“COVID-19 has been treated like a world-ender; it’s not even remotely close.”
“This is not a medical crisis, but a political crisis.”
“If you love your children, enjoy sports, or know anyone who owns or is employed by a small business you should be angry.” Yes, you should be very angry. “We can absolutely take steps to protect the elderly and vulnerable, but everything should reopen immediately.”
Some Honest Questions
There are some “opinions” offered in the article as well, but enough has been cited to lay the foundation for my questions. And again, I ask for the sake of improved understanding.
If COVID-19 is no more deadly than normal influenza, why do so many of us know someone who died of COVID-19? I’m 65 years old now, and I can’t remember the last friend (or friend of a friend) who died of the flu. But already, among those who have passed away, I can personally count an old friend (an active, 74-year-old), a close friend of a friend (also very active, in his early 60s), and two friends of two close friends (I believe in their 60s as well). In other words, in my immediate circle of friends and their friends, in the last few weeks, four have died of COVID-19, whereas I can’t remember anyone I know dying of the flu in many years (decades?). What does that imply?
If COVID-19 is no more deadly or contagious than normal influenza, why has it had such a devastating effect on the ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities, especially in Israel? These communities deal with the flu every year, as do other communities, but the fatalities and serious complications from COVID-19 seem drastically different than during the normal flu season. Why is that? One ultra-Orthodox website features a COVID19 Live Blog, COVID19 Tehillim Names (Tehillim means Psalms; these are people with the virus who are being prayed for); and a COVID19 Activity List. The website also features obituaries of victims, including rabbis in their 30s and 40s. Does this strike you as surprising?
A friend of mine in Northern Italy shared some of the tragic stories coming from his part of the world, including firsthand accounts of a number of pastors who died of the disease. Here too, the numbers seem disproportionately higher than during the normal flu season. Why is that?
Why did countries other than America, including Israel, go to such extreme lengths to shut down their nations, knowing the terrible financial damage that would ensue? And why did Singapore, praised for its approach in the earlier weeks, have to go to much more extreme measures in recent days as the disease has skyrocketed among the migrant workers? (See here and here for details.)
A healthcare giver from the UK asked, “if it’s less infectious than flu and doesn’t make the average under 60 person sick … why have almost all the staff where I work been off with it? Fortunately the last of us is coming back to work now so we can get on with our jobs, looking after the elderly. This disease has taken several of them despite our best efforts to keep it out.” Does this surprise you at all?
Why I Ask
To say it once more, these are honest questions I have. And I have them precisely because I am lacking the necessary expertise to sort through the competing claims.
Also, in no way am I defending all of our government’s decisions. And I have openly criticized the overreach of some local leaders. In addition, I recognize that many people have their own agendas, including political and financial. Those agendas could cloud their judgment.
I am simply asking some honest, “layman” type questions. I imagine I am not the only reader of this important article that has similar questions. To any who can respond, thanks in advance for your time. And thanks for all you are doing for the good of the nation.
Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is When the World Stops: Words of Faith, Hope, and Wisdom in the Midst of Crisis. Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube.


thestream--2020-04-28--Finding the Sublime in the Surreal

Finding the Sublime in the Surreal

“ Surreal ” is a word people have been using a lot in the last month or so , under the new coronavirus reality .
The word can be used to touch upon the terrifying and the life-endangering , as well as the merely inconvenient .
Many of our lives are not what they once were .
Routines are out of whack , and work and family dynamics are shifting .
And , of course , there is the all-around uncertainty , and the wistful thought that maybe this is all just a bad dream we will wake up from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to when we don ’ t really have words to adequately describe what is going on .
For instance , on a recent day , when New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ’ s daily news conference included praise of President Donald Trump : “ Surreal ” could describe that .
The president subsequently had clips of the governor ’ s praise played at the White House briefing that same night .
( The president has always been known to be a fan of praise . )
But could there be something else going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has been falling into the abyss of constant anger and derision , could we be having a moment where the surreal has an element of enduring change ?
The pivotal question seems to be : Is this a national crisis that we are merely going to get through with some minimal , surface-level changes , or is this going to be a moment of real change ?
I ’ ve been thinking a lot lately about my friend Kate O ’ Beirne .
She died three years ago this month , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remember that she was a panelist on CNN ’ s Capital Gang and my colleague at National Review magazine .
She had a quick New York wit — a gift many of us who knew her wish we had .
It seemed everyone wanted her advice on just about everything , whether it was high-level national politics , dating advice or wardrobe tips .
( She may have gotten me appropriately dressed to meet Pope Benedict XVI on one memorable occasion . )
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fear .
I was able to be with her near the end of her life , thanks to the generosity of her family .
I saw things I can not explain .
Healing things .
God prepares us in mysterious ways before we leave , and I saw confirmation of that , not for the first time .
But I also remember all the people in her hospital wing who were alone .
That ’ s the rule now , of course : You ’ re sick and dying , and you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the world by your side .
I know God uses that , too , but it ’ s agony .
In Kate ’ s case , it was definitely surreal to see a woman described as a “ dynamo ” and a “ force of nature ” laboring to breathe .
The woman who would make every event better , who would draw you out of yourself , was lying helpless in a bed .
We are all , of course , going to be in that position one day .
Whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sudden robbery of COVID-19 or something even more abrupt , death is inescapable .
And when I watched those two press conferences , it seemed that maybe even the politicians realized that there were things more important than party politics .
Pope Francis prayed for politicians the other day , noting that it is a noble calling — or at least it should be !
That ’ s why we pray for wisdom and prudence in elected leaders .
A presidential campaign , even in a time of pandemic , sets a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the confidence level of a population .
As she neared the end , Kate — the font of every good column idea for her colleagues — had no interest in politics .
She only seemed to care about her family , her faith and her friends .
Who knows what complex psychological issues are playing out in all of our surreal experiences right now ?
But I do wonder , as I hear a governor talk about his family and his struggles during the course of a daily briefing , if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mortality check we all ought to be having .
Of course , sometimes I watch the White House evening briefing and see the comments on Twitter and realize we are nowhere near the sober place this is calling us to .
But we can all make a decision to contribute to this as a transformational moment : one that isn ’ t just about survival , but about flourishing in enduring — and even eternal — ways .
Kathryn Jean Lopez is senior fellow at the National Review Institute , editor-at-large of National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book A Year With the Mystics : Visionary Wisdom for Daily Living .
She is also chair of Cardinal Dolan ’ s pro-life commission in New York .
She can be contacted at klopez @ nationalreview.com .

“Surreal” is a word people have been using a lot in the last month or so, under the new coronavirus reality. The word can be used to touch upon the terrifying and the life-endangering, as well as the merely inconvenient.
Many of our lives are not what they once were. Routines are out of whack, and work and family dynamics are shifting. And, of course, there is the all-around uncertainty, and the wistful thought that maybe this is all just a bad dream we will wake up from.
An Element of Enduring Change
We need something to latch on to when we don’t really have words to adequately describe what is going on. For instance, on a recent day, when New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s daily news conference included praise of President Donald Trump: “Surreal” could describe that. The president subsequently had clips of the governor’s praise played at the White House briefing that same night. (The president has always been known to be a fan of praise.) But could there be something else going on, too? In a country that has been falling into the abyss of constant anger and derision, could we be having a moment where the surreal has an element of enduring change?
The pivotal question seems to be: Is this a national crisis that we are merely going to get through with some minimal, surface-level changes, or is this going to be a moment of real change?
Kate O’Beirne
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about my friend Kate O’Beirne. She died three years ago this month, and if you know her name, you remember that she was a panelist on CNN’s Capital Gang and my colleague at National Review magazine. She had a quick New York wit — a gift many of us who knew her wish we had. It seemed everyone wanted her advice on just about everything, whether it was high-level national politics, dating advice or wardrobe tips. (She may have gotten me appropriately dressed to meet Pope Benedict XVI on one memorable occasion.)
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
I was able to be with her near the end of her life, thanks to the generosity of her family. I saw things I cannot explain. Healing things. God prepares us in mysterious ways before we leave, and I saw confirmation of that, not for the first time. But I also remember all the people in her hospital wing who were alone. That’s the rule now, of course: You’re sick and dying, and you can’t have those you love most in the world by your side. I know God uses that, too, but it’s agony. In Kate’s case, it was definitely surreal to see a woman described as a “dynamo” and a “force of nature” laboring to breathe. The woman who would make every event better, who would draw you out of yourself, was lying helpless in a bed.
Mortality Check
We are all, of course, going to be in that position one day. Whether it’s succumbing to cancer, the sudden robbery of COVID-19 or something even more abrupt, death is inescapable. And when I watched those two press conferences, it seemed that maybe even the politicians realized that there were things more important than party politics.
Pope Francis prayed for politicians the other day, noting that it is a noble calling — or at least it should be! That’s why we pray for wisdom and prudence in elected leaders. A presidential campaign, even in a time of pandemic, sets a tone. It can add or subtract to the confidence level of a population.
As she neared the end, Kate — the font of every good column idea for her colleagues — had no interest in politics. She only seemed to care about her family, her faith and her friends.
Who knows what complex psychological issues are playing out in all of our surreal experiences right now? But I do wonder, as I hear a governor talk about his family and his struggles during the course of a daily briefing, if he’s having the kind of healthy mortality check we all ought to be having.
Of course, sometimes I watch the White House evening briefing and see the comments on Twitter and realize we are nowhere near the sober place this is calling us to. But we can all make a decision to contribute to this as a transformational moment: one that isn’t just about survival, but about flourishing in enduring — and even eternal — ways.
Kathryn Jean Lopez is senior fellow at the National Review Institute, editor-at-large of National Review magazine and author of the new book A Year With the Mystics: Visionary Wisdom for Daily Living. She is also chair of Cardinal Dolan’s pro-life commission in New York. She can be contacted at [email protected].


thestream--2020-04-28--You’re Free to Stay Home

You’re Free to Stay Home

Of course you don ’ t want to get the virus .
Nobody wants to get the virus .
Nobody wants to get the virus , nobody wants to have the virus , and nobody wants to give the virus away .
Nobody wants to give you the virus or get the virus from you .
Thankfully , there ’ s an almost perfect way for you not to get the virus .
If you don ’ t want to get the virus , you already have the Constitutional right to avoid it .
You ’ re free to stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solved .
But a lot of you want to force everyone else to stay home .
You want to violate their rights in the expression of your own .
You can already stay home any time you want .
You don ’ t need any additional permission .
It ’ s already legal .
But to make everyone else stay home ?
That ’ s a right no one has — to deprive millions of their freedom so you can maintain your personal safety .
Support The Stream : Serving the Body During @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And No Fear .
Some are saying that people are being selfish or sinful by going out of their homes because they endanger other people .
But no one can be endangered unless they themselves go out or let people that have been out come in .
And no one is forcing anyone to do either of those things .
Some people need to work , need to earn , need to pay their rent or mortgage , need to feed their children , need to provide for the wellbeing of their families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under house-arrest so you can feel safe ?
This is not a good thing to do .
Is It Selfish to Go Out ?
Or to Force Your Neighbor to Stay In ?
Some people argue that you violate the commandment to “ love your neighbor as yourself ” by going outside or going to church , because it ’ s selfish .
So their protecting themselves , by destroying their neighbor ’ s ability to take care of themselves and their families , would not be selfish ?
No .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me at the cost of my neighbor , when all that was really necessary was for me to stay home .
My neighbor can ’ t get me there , safe in my domicile .
It ’ s cozy , really .
It ’ s a deprivation of my neighbors ’ being for the sake of my own , and on a scale and cost that is absolutely monstrous : the closing of a nation .
It ’ s not reasonable , and it ’ s not moral .
It would seem to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do to stay safe is stay home .
I know you probably can ’ t be convinced , but I at least want to make you responsible .
Instead of obeying the law and protecting your neighbor ’ s rights , you trample them underfoot and suspend the fundamental laws of the nation , the Constitution of the United States , and the Bill of Rights .
Why ?
Because you think it would be best to make your neighbors stay home against their will — when you have no right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you who won ’ t allow your neighbors to endanger themselves by going out , you ’ re not their mother .
They don ’ t owe you their obedience .
They are not your property , and you have no right to exercise dominion over your neighbors .
They are a free people and have been granted that freedom by their God .
Good men have died to earn them that right .
They have never known bondage or servitude .
Until now .

Of course you don’t want to get the virus. Nobody wants to get the virus.
Nobody wants to get the virus, nobody wants to have the virus, and nobody wants to give the virus away. Nobody wants to give you the virus or get the virus from you.
Thankfully, there’s an almost perfect way for you not to get the virus.
Just stay home.
Depriving Millions of Their Freedom
If you don’t want to get the virus, you already have the Constitutional right to avoid it. You’re free to stay home and never get it. Problem solved. But a lot of you want to force everyone else to stay home. You want to violate their rights in the expression of your own.
You can already stay home any time you want. You don’t need any additional permission. It’s already legal.
But to make everyone else stay home? That’s a right no one has — to deprive millions of their freedom so you can maintain your personal safety.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Some are saying that people are being selfish or sinful by going out of their homes because they endanger other people. But no one can be endangered unless they themselves go out or let people that have been out come in. And no one is forcing anyone to do either of those things.
Just stay home.
Some people need to work, need to earn, need to pay their rent or mortgage, need to feed their children, need to provide for the wellbeing of their families. And you’re keeping them under house-arrest so you can feel safe?
This is not a good thing to do.
Is It Selfish to Go Out? Or to Force Your Neighbor to Stay In?
Some people argue that you violate the commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” by going outside or going to church, because it’s selfish. So their protecting themselves, by destroying their neighbor’s ability to take care of themselves and their families, would not be selfish?
No. That’s all self. One hundred percent me at the cost of my neighbor, when all that was really necessary was for me to stay home. My neighbor can’t get me there, safe in my domicile. It’s cozy, really.
You have no right to exercise dominion over your neighbors. They are a free people and have been granted that freedom by their God.
It’s a deprivation of my neighbors’ being for the sake of my own, and on a scale and cost that is absolutely monstrous: the closing of a nation. It’s not reasonable, and it’s not moral.
It would seem to be overtly self-indulgent. All you have to do to stay safe is stay home.
Their God-Given Freedom
I know you probably can’t be convinced, but I at least want to make you responsible.
Instead of obeying the law and protecting your neighbor’s rights, you trample them underfoot and suspend the fundamental laws of the nation, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. Why? Because you think it would be best to make your neighbors stay home against their will — when you have no right to do that.
As for those of you who won’t allow your neighbors to endanger themselves by going out, you’re not their mother. They don’t owe you their obedience. They are not your property, and you have no right to exercise dominion over your neighbors. They are a free people and have been granted that freedom by their God.
Good men have died to earn them that right. They have never known bondage or servitude. Until now.
Rev. Christopher Neiswonger, J.D., is pastor of Graceview Presbyterian Church, Southaven, Miss.
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--2020-04-28--Military Photo of the Day: Serving at a Drive-Thru Mobile Pantry

Soldiers with the Delaware Army National Guard hand out bags of apples at a drive-thru mobile pantry in Newark , @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 .
Thank you to these compassionate warriors for helping feed the hungry during @ @ @ @ @ Support The Stream : Serving the Body During This Crisis With Facts .
Faith .
@ @ @ @

Soldiers with the Delaware Army National Guard hand out bags of apples at a drive-thru mobile pantry in Newark, Delaware, on April 20, 2020.
Thank you to these compassionate warriors for helping feed the hungry during this time of crisis.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.