Tag: government

Posted on

Covid-19, Churches, and Hardware Stores

By Jim Spiegel

Here is another point about the issue of government bans on Church worship services that in my two previous posts I have taken for granted but which I evidently need to make explicit. Do these bans really accomplish much given how little time each week is devoted to corporate worship? And does the small reduction of risk achieved by such bans compensate for the loss of religious freedom they entail?

Consider the fact that during the pandemic hardware stores like Lowe’s, Home Depot, and Menards are open every day of the week for 11-14 hours each day with thousands of customers coming and going throughout the week, while church services, which average just 75 people, are not permitted to meet for even one hour each week. When it comes to presenting a real danger to a community in terms of spreading the Covid-19 virus, the risks at a small church service are negligible compared to those at such large hardware stores. Yet the former are closed while the latter are bustling with activity all over the country.

One might argue that our society needs hardware stores to stay open far more than we need weekly worship services. First, such a response presupposes that corporate worship is not necessary for human flourishing, which begs the question of my original argument in my April 25 post. Secondly, even if one grants that corporate worship services are not as essential to human flourishing as home improvement supplies, then can we not at least grant that worship services are 1/60th as valuable as hardware stores? If so, then this would warrant permitting a 90-minute worship service once per week (to maintain the proper value ratio vis-à-vis a Lowe’s, Home Depot, or Menards, which are open 80+ hours per week).

So, fellow Christians, if you support the ban on church worship services while you’re supporting keeping open such hardware stores (and your shopping at one of these stores during the week is a tacit admission that you do), then this would seem to imply that you have a rather low view of the importance of corporate worship. For some of my critics, perhaps that is the real crux of our divergence on this issue, and that is fine. But for those who say they place a high value on corporate worship, something has to give here.

If you are really that concerned about human contact hours and the risk this presents regarding spreading the virus, then it would be far more efficient to create a stricter limit on the operating hours of retail stores. Therefore, I would suggest this modest compromise: Reduce the operating hours of large retail outlets by just one hour per day and lift the ban on corporate worship services. This would create a net reduction in the number of contact hours during which the virus can be spread while preserving the public good of corporate worship. Everybody okay with that?

Posted on

More Thoughts on Government Bans of Worship Services

By Jim Spiegel

In his powerful plea to keep churches open during the Coronavirus pandemic, First Things editor R. R. Reno declared that “the massive shutdown of just about everything reflects the spirit of our age, which regards the prospect of death as the supreme evil to be avoided at all costs.” It is interesting to note, however, that in this country we don’t take this approach with any consistency.

Let’s suppose we could be confident that Covid-19 is, say, three or even five times as deadly as seasonal flu and thus likely to kill tens of thousands more Americans if the bans on corporate worship are lifted. Would this justify these mandates? Well, consider some other legal behaviors in this country which result in the deaths of large numbers of people. Every year approximately 40,000 Americans die in traffic accidents. This figure could be greatly reduced by simply lowering the speed limit 10 or 15 mph. But no one is clamoring for this in the interest of saving innocent lives. Why? Because we cherish our freedom to drive fast and arrive at our destinations quickly, even though doing so endangers ourselves as well as others.

Or consider the fact that there are approximately 480,000 deaths in the U.S. each year due to tobacco use. We have chosen to keep tobacco use legal despite this high mortality rate. Why? Again, because we cherish our freedom to use these products. Similar points can be made regarding the legality of alcohol and fatty foods in this country.

The point is that there are many activities which cost hundreds of thousands of American lives every year, but we keep them legal despite this because of the pleasure we get out them and simply because we cherish freedom. So why not permit religious worship services even if this costs more lives? Is not the freedom to engage in the corporate worship of God at least as valuable as the freedom to drive fast, smoke a cigarette, drink a beer, or eat a cheeseburger?

Here many Christians appeal to the alternative of on-line worship as a reasonable alternative to traditional corporate worship. Aside from the fact that on-line worship is an inherently poor substitute for worshiping in the physical presence of fellow believers, there is the further problem that two church sacraments—baptism and communion—cannot be administered via on-line services. For those church traditions where communion is done on a weekly basis and necessarily administered by an ordained minister, this is a serious loss. Even in those traditions where communion is administered monthly, as the corporate shutdowns continue, the loss is felt there as well. Perhaps your particular church tradition is not highly sacramental, but for tens of millions of Americans communion is a means of grace. This is vital spiritual nourishment, and government mandates are depriving them of this. That is a big deal, a serious blow to their relationship with God. This is another reason why I am surprised that more Christians aren’t challenging the shutdowns of corporate worship services.

Posted on

Are Government Bans on Religious Worship Services Morally Appropriate?

By Jim Spiegel

During the Covid-19 pandemic many state governments across the country have banned church worship services. Some states have prohibited religious services altogether, while others have placed severe restrictions on the number of people who may gather to worship. While the constitutionality of this unprecedented move is certainly open to debate, one may question whether such bans are morally appropriate. Thus, we may ask, do religious practitioners have a moral obligation to abide by these mandates even if they are constitutional?

Here is an argument which challenges the moral appropriateness of the bans on religious services:

  1. Civil government has a moral duty to permit what is essential to human flourishing.
  2. The corporate worship of God is essential to human flourishing.
  3. Therefore, civil government mandates which forbid corporate worship are immoral.
  4. Christians do not have a duty to abide by immoral government mandates, particularly those which proscribe fundamental aspects of their religious practice.
  5. Therefore, Christians do not have a moral duty to abide by a government mandate to abstain from corporate worship.

What follows from the conclusion here is that congregants at local Christian churches don’t have an obligation to abide by the government mandate to avoid meeting for corporate worship.

This is a logically valid and, I believe, sound argument. That is, the conclusion follows from the premises and, it seems to me, each of the premises is true. I assume most Christians will grant the first and fourth premises, as would all Christian ethicists and theologians I know of. So that leaves the critic with the burden of demonstrating that the second premise is false. Presumably, many atheists and religious skeptics will reject this premise, in some cases because they believe that religious practice of any kind is actually harmful. That’s fine. My main audience with this argument is fellow religious practitioners.

But is the Covid-19 pandemic somehow serious enough to justify a qualification to the second premise and thus warrant certain bans on worship services? In other words, might this pandemic provide a special exception to the general truth that corporate worship services enhance human flourishing? This question naturally leads us into a discussion of a whole nest of issues that are epidemiological, immunological, microbiological, economic, and statistical in nature. This is why we must pay close attention to recent reports and scientific studies showing the mortality rate of the Coronavirus is much lower than previously thought. Several recent studies suggest that the mortality rate of this virus is comparable to that of common strains of flu. Other reports suggest a higher mortality rate than seasonal flu, though still no more than .08%. But is this difference significant enough to warrant a general ban on religious services? It’s difficult to see how it could be when other options are available. For example, why not rather encourage high risk people (i.e., the elderly and those with pre-existing medical problems) to stay at home while allowing others to resume practice of corporate worship?

If Covid-19 mortality rate data is inconclusive in terms of justifying general bans on corporate worship services, then the social harms caused by the shutdowns should give us further pause as regards warranting an exception to the general good of corporate worship. There is also the economic dimension of shutdowns, which some economists believe could trigger a depression. Furthermore, the shutdowns are taking a serious public mental health toll in our country.

All things considered, there is evidence to suggest that the shutdowns, not just of worship services but other sectors of society, are more harmful than helpful, potentially more devastating to American society than any flu virus could be. This creates strong supplemental support for my argument’s second premise, which given any reasonable Christian view of government already enjoys a strong presumption in its favor. Therefore, only very strong empirical evidence could nullify it’s applicability to our current situation. And that, I submit, no one has provided, despite what our political leaders and the American mainstream media have been telling us.

Posted on

Some Observations Regarding the COVID-19 Crisis

By Jim Spiegel

Here are some of my thoughts on the Coronavirus crisis or, perhaps more accurately, thoughts on how some people have been responding to the crisis.

    1. During the past several weeks of the COVID-19 crisis, I’m sure we have all heard and read some interesting claims about the virus and its likely consequences. One of the more hyperbolic claims I’ve seen was made two weeks ago in the Chronicle of Higher Education by Paul Friga, who said, “there is no doubt we are in one of the most turbulent and challenging times in American, and world, history.” That’s a strong claim. I suppose it depends on what he means by “one of the most.” If death toll is a key indicator of a turbulent and challenging time, then it is worth noting that throughout history there have been about forty wars, forty famines, twenty plagues, and seven genocides that have produced more than one million fatalities each. And the fatalities of more than a hundred of other wars, plagues, famines, genocides, and natural disasters have each exceeded half a million. Compare these figures to the COVID-19 crisis where worldwide fatalities total less than 80,000 to date. This number will surely continue to climb, but just how many will die from this virus is difficult to estimate at this point. Death toll prognostications vary wildly. So Friga’s claim is actually quite uncertain, notwithstanding his confidence. The lesson here is that, tempting as it might be to make strong (even world historical) assertions about the severity of our current crisis, it is probably best to refrain until we have sufficient data to warrant doing so. Otherwise, one risks exacerbating public fear and anxiety, which, for all we know, might already be out of proportion with the actual danger posed by COVID-19.
    2. By advising severe social distancing in the form of lockdowns and limited travel, the U.S. federal government is widely represented as taking the “safe” approach. After all, by doing so, we slow the spread of the virus and “flatten the curve” of infections so that our health care system is not overwhelmed. This is surely a laudable concern, but it is only one factor in an overall equation. In fact, strong social distancing is not unequivocally the “safe” approach, because this risks a national economic depression (not to mention a potential epidemic of clinical depression) and perhaps even a global economic catastrophe, which also would mean massive loss of life. So the curve-flattening social-distancing strategy is not obviously the “safe” option but itself is a significant gamble. Another potential risk pertains to how this approach could backfire and actually exacerbate the spread of the COVID-19 virus. As one Ivy League physician has argued, there could be more fatalities in the long run due to severe social distancing, since this diminishes the development of “herd immunity” within the population. This is a controversial suggestion, of course, since it runs against the current of popular wisdom about the pandemic (which explains why this author chose to remain anonymous). But, given all of the uncertainty at this stage, this possibility should not be ruled out.
    3. Much of the ostensibly empathetic concern on the part of institutional leaders and, especially, politicians and media personalities (I’ll resist the temptation to name names) strikes me as insincere moral grandstanding. Some of what I have seen on social media during this time falls into this category as well. Just as my awareness of the reality of this trend was beginning to gel in my mind, a colleague of mine shared with me his own thoughts along these lines:

Sometimes it seems like individuals and institutions in our culture are so conscious of the history that they’re making while they’re making it that it affects history itself. It’s like every historical event becomes one great big cultural selfie, as our primary concern in the midst of any event is to document our feelings and “stories” as we make and experience them. I wonder if all the historical testimony that we leave like that for posterity will do little more than convince later historians how unreliable our own historical testimony about ourselves really is, except for its reliability in showing clearly what a bunch [of] narcissists we all really were. For that our testimony will be utterly reliable. And who can blame those later historians if they conclude that we were a generation who was so busy turning everything into our own historical selfies that we never actually really lived in history.

This strikes me as a profound, if disturbing, insight about our culture. It has been said that adversity doesn’t build character so much as it reveals it. Perhaps our current crisis will be valuable for what it teaches us about ourselves, however painful those lessons might be

Posted on

Post-Election Reflections

By Amy Spiegel

I suppose at this point that most of you have had it up to the proverbial “here” with politics and any discussion thereof. I have felt a strange absence post-election—no more pundits predicting this outcome or that, no heated debates filling the airways, etc.

I am trying to put absence to good use, however. Pre-election, I participated in a political panel discussion on Taylor’s campus. The topic was civility—how we can discuss and debate issues many of us feel very passionately about without discrediting ourselves, or our Savior. I have been considering some of the things that were said that night and one thing keeps coming back to me, maybe because I said it. In response to a question I sadly don’t remember, I encouraged the students to make sure that their lives reflected their political convictions. That is to say, if you say you are for the poor then make sure you don’t just depend on the government to take care of the poor. If you say you are for freedom of speech, then don’t shut down others when they try to speak.

So I have been thinking about how my life reflects my political convictions and how I can better align those convictions with my everyday life. Here are a few ways I am doing so:

1)  I believe that the ultimate solution for our woes as a nation, as the human race is Jesus, so shouldn’t I spend at least as much time listening to people talk about Christ as I do listening to people talk about the right and the left? My kids can rattle off talk radio hosts like nobody’s business, but shouldn’t they be able to rattle off famous pastors and theologians just as easily? So I am trying to listen to Christian radio more. I say “trying” because so much of it is so awful I would rather listen to NPR’s coverage of the Republican Convention, but I am finding some of it very edifying. It has added depth to our car conversations. So no matter what Alistair Begg is saying, I’ll listen. I would happily listen to that man read a telephone book.

2)  I have been very critical about the wasteful and truly immoral way our government is frittering away billions of dollars, and yet am I as careful as I ought to be with my own family’s resources? If I want a government that spends wisely, then shouldn’t I be a citizen who spends wisely? We are hardly extravagant people, but when I think of the needs that are out there, I am sure we could do better. I also want to be willing to see government programs from which I benefit, namely public charter schools, cut for the sake of whole, however painful a loss to me personally.

3)  I believe in the American republic and the right to elect our governmental officials, but what happens when those elected don’t reflect my positions? Since the election, I have been reminding myself that one side has to lose, and why do I think I have the right to be in the majority? It feels pretty safe to be in the majority and it is easy to talk about democracy then, but what about when you are in the minority? Even if I dislike the outcome, I must respect the process.

Ultimately, all these things add up to this, I want to live a life that makes politics irrelevant. I want to teach my kids, and myself, that the best public service we can perform isn’t done on election day but every day before and after.

Posted on

Why Government is Stupid

By Amy Spiegel

I realize that being a libertarian these days has become the cool way of disengaging from the political scene without looking entirely apathetic. However, after having recently spent more than a dozen hours trapped—uh, I mean bonding—with my two youngest kids in the car with nothing but the voices on the radio to distract me from their incessant whining—uh, I mean playful chatter—I continue to be drawn to the idea that most of the things the government does these days is really stupid. National defense? All for it. Basic infrastructure? Sure. Umm…coming up blank for any other major problems I trust either side of the aisle to tackle with some semblance of competence. Here are a few examples that have me ready to pack up and head for the hills:

Number One: I recently heard a report on the crisis facing many states regarding their unemployment insurance programs. With so many unemployed, the states don’t have the money to continue benefit payments and several are faced with raising taxes in order to help fund their programs. Not only are they looking to raise everyone’s taxes (a sure fire way to stimulate the economy) but it has also been suggested that businesses could be forced to contribute more to the fund. So rather than taking money that could be used to hire new employees, employers will be paying into a fund that will filter the money through goodness knows how many levels of bureaucracy until a portion of it finds its way into the hands of those who really just need a job? I certainly don’t want to straw man our complex system of economics or look upon the unemployed with a heart of stone, but I simply don’t see the government as the most efficient distributor of wealth.

Number Two: Last year, NASA was called in by the Department of Transportation to investigate the connection between unexplained accelerations among Toyota vehicles and possible flaws in their cars’ electrical systems. (Personally, I think the DOT only asked NASA to help so they could include such phrases as “rocket scientists” and “well, the experts from NASA say” in their reports but that theory has yet to be proven.) Ten months (and goodness knows how many millions of our dollars) later, nothing is wrong with the electrical systems! Well that must be such a relief to the hundreds of people who actually experienced this problem. As opposed to the millions of us who helped pay for this study. Again, I don’t want to seem cold-hearted, but this seems more like a private matter between the consumer and company. Let them work it out between themselves or, if needed, use the court system. I think there is a long laundry list of concerns that outrank this one. If Toyota has a defective product, don’t buy it and leave the rocket scientists to study, I don’t know, rocket science.

Number Three: President Obama recently announced “new investments” in a high-speed rail system. Now I love trains and am convinced that people in Europe are better informed simply because while we are all stuck in our cars inhaling carbon monoxide, they are reading books and periodicals on the train. Nevertheless, I have two objections to this idea. First, until the federal government can prove its efficiency in any areas other than collecting taxes and spending more than they collect, how about we forego flushing more money down the public toilet of Amtrak subsidies? If the country needs high-speed trains, let someone else figure out how to make it profitable. When that happens, I will gladly sit smilingly beside Joe Biden and yell “All aboard!” My other objection stems from the dysfunctional relationship government creates between its “consumers” and the “company.” An example? Libraries. Again, I love libraries but when I am annoyed by their policies or rude attitudes where do I go for recourse? There are times when I would gladly pay for additional privileges (longer hold times, extra renewals) but since the library has no profit motive, why should they care if I am satisfied or not? If video rental stores can turn a profit, why not private subscriptions to libraries?

Perhaps these are oversimplifications of highly complex issues, but if our government is supposed to be by the people and for the people, then perhaps we the people need to be out there doing for ourselves and giving the government a bit of a federal holiday.

Posted on

Pulling the Cotton Wool Over My Eyes

By Amy Spiegel

Just when I thought the health care debate was dead and buried, last week U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson announced he would hear argument in a lawsuit brought on by a coalition of states seeking to block the recently passed health care overhaul.  And just when I thought I had no new thoughts regarding the subject, a conspiracy of circumstances conspired to prove me wrong. First, while having coffee with several moms from my kids’ school, someone shared her experience of having a baby in England. Under their nationalized health care system, so said the above mentioned mother, patients are expected to provide many items that we take for granted on this side of the big pond—diapers, towels, and feminine products, none of which are supplied by the hospital. She even told the story of her infant daughter having blood drawn and the nurse turning to her and demanding cotton wool (that’s a cotton ball to us Yanks but it sounds so much more dignified to say cotton wool) in order to stop the bleeding.

After recovering from my initial shock, I realized that I had cotton wool pulled over my eyes if I thought for one moment the hospitals States-side were “giving” me anything! Sure, the nurse is only too willing to bandage my bundle-of-joy’s wee foot with a cotton ball, after which the hospital files a claim with my insurance company charging $20 for “a sterilized blood-absorbing sphere.” This realization occurred, in part as I visited my own medical professional the next morning. I have been having knee pain for a while now and after she listened to my symptoms, my doctor immediately ordered blood work, x-rays, the whole nine yards. Holding the sterilized blood-absorbing sphere to the needle prick in my arm, I realized I had no idea how much any of this was costing. I am the woman who holds war room strategy meetings over how to visit Olive Garden as a family without blowing our entire budget in one meal. I coupon and bargain hunt and yet here I was going through a battery of, what I assumed to be, very expensive tests with no concept of the final price tag.

That’s when it hit me: the problem with health care is me; at least in part, that is. Sure there is need for tort reform, limits to malpractice settlements and Medicare fraud. But that certainly doesn’t negate my own responsibility to be a wise consumer of medical treatment in the same way I try to be in all other areas of my spending. When our kids need braces in a few years, Jim and I fully intend to shop around. Why? Because we are the ones paying for it. Not in some obscure way of filing claims and benefit packages nor through paying taxes and then having the government act as our middle man, but in the hey-let-me-reach-into-my-pocket-and-pull-out-the-money-we-were-saving-for-vaction-and-have-you-put-it-on-my-kid’s-teeth-instead way. I don’t recall ever walking into the grocery store and handing all my money to some third party, giving them my list, and assuming they would buy what we needed at a good price. So why on earth do I do it with healthcare and why in the name of all that is holy would I want to let the government take over that role?

Perhaps the time is coming when I won’t have any choice in the matter, but I believe that if that time is coming it is, in part, because I abdicated the responsibility of choice long ago. Perhaps it is too late to make a difference, but I now have fantasies of entering my doctor’s office armed with a new sense of empowerment and duty to question. I will figure out what counts toward deductible and which number I am supposed to call on my insurance card.  And I will definitely bring my own cotton wool.