Talking Point Blog - Covid Passports
Where the Lord is, there is freedom – religious approach to the issue of covid passports
There is controversy everywhere these days, in part because of the prevalence and influence of social media – this blog being just one example of it. Everyone has an opinion and thanks to the availability of technology anyone, anywhere in the world can access that opinion and even comment on it. This has led to not only a division in society unseen in living memory, but also to a toxicity that is dissolving the bonds within families and within society in general. It feels like we cannot keep going on like this.
The last 18 months or so have demonstrated this through the covid-19 pandemic. Even stating this will create division, as there are some who deny that it ever was a pandemic, and still others who deny that covid itself even exists.
With regards to the question concerning the soon to be applied ‘covid passports’, one issue that rears its head is that of liberties and personal freedom. Are these ‘passports’ an attack on personal liberty and the right to choose? Are they a stifling of hard-won freedoms secured for us after the Second World War – freedoms we remember on the 11th November every year?
I have no intention of delving into the political or scientific considerations around this topic because I’m in no way qualified to do so. What I intend to do is to take a short look at what religion, specifically the Christian religion, says about this. This will not be an academic treatise or a scholarly article because primarily I’m not that type of person. This will be a personal piece that draws in my own experience and reflections of Faith from the religious context that I find myself in. No answers or solutions will be offered.
The tag-line for the denomination I find myself in is Ubi Spiritus Domini Ibi Libertas which is taken from the Latin translation of 2 Corinthians 3:17, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”. As a non-creedal denomination, we pride ourselves in letting everyone discover their own faith: a faith guided by reason and conscience. There is no restriction imposed on people when it comes to matter of faith or conceptions of God or the Divine. People have the right to believe whatever they want, or to put it another way, people have the right not to have beliefs forced upon them. Either way, it amounts to the same thing.
Looking at this in the context of the impending ‘covid passports’ it at first seems to be cut and dried, for it looks like I’m saying that we have the right to believe what we want/not believe what others want us to, so the introduction of these ‘passports’ are something that I would fundamentally oppose. Well, yes……….and no. If only life were that easy!
The ‘passports’ will restrict access to pubs, restaurants, theatres, and other places for those who are unvaccinated. It is at this juncture that it might be wise to point out that while the percentage of people who are unvaccinated here in Northern Ireland is relatively small (I’ve no idea what the actual figures might be, but I’m guessing that it’s no more than 15%), those people will be divided into roughly three groups:
1. those who for medical reasons are unable to receive a vaccination
2. those who while supportive of the vaccination program are nevertheless unwilling to take it on the principle that mandatory or pressurised vaccination in unethical
3. and those who for a variety of other reasons are sceptical or hesitant. This group is probably the largest section of the unvaccinated because it includes a wide spectrum of opinions, from those who doubt the scientific need or efficacy of a covid vaccine, to those who see conspiracy and the fingerprints of the Illuminati in every nook and cranny, and all shades of opinion in-between.
Should we tolerate restrictions on an individual's freedoms? That’s an interesting question, especially from a religious viewpoint because certainly for the Bible, the base religious text for Judaism and Christianity at least, the notion of individual rights is a strange one. As far as I’m aware, the idea of individual rights was born out of the Enlightenment period and the philosophers that dominated its thinking. There may have been thoughts around it before that, as I’m sure someone reading this will point out, but generally I believe it was the end of the Medieval age and the beginning of the Modern Age that ushered in the adoption of individual rights into all areas of society.
Not so much before that, and not really something of prominence in the foundational texts of the world’s religions, which seem, generally speaking, to talk of community rather than the individual person. We can see this in how we read our religious texts. Take for example a verse from Jeremiah 29:11 that adorns many a family fridge or which appears as a meme shared on Facebook etc connected to those going through a rough time: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” Inspiring words that many individuals have taken comfort from…..except the many “you”s of that verse are second person PLURAL. Or to translate it into Norn Irish, “”For I know the plans I have for yousuns…..”. God was talking to the people of Israel, not to an individual.
Now, I realise that one swallow does not make a summer, but my understanding of both Old and New Testaments is that their general thrust is towards the group rather than the individual. And I realise that there are passages that are directed to a single person, but while St Paul does write to Philemon, the bulk of his correspondence are to groups of people – the church in Philippi, the church in Rome, the church in Galatia etc.
The former Prime Minister of the UK, Margaret Thatcher, once famously said, “And, you know, there's no such thing as society.” It was assumed that she didn’t accept the concept of community and that the individual was the first and last consideration when it came to Tory government policy, but that might not be fair or an entirely accurate interpretation of her words. To do that you need to read the rest of what she said: “….There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.” Individual considerations were only important insofar as they also impacted on those around us: our neighbours; society.
When it comes to covid-19 there needs to be a balance between individual’s rights and community responsibilities. That might mean temporarily giving up certain ‘rights’ for the benefit of others. Often, you might see someone give up their seat on a bus or train for someone who is less physically able. That person may well have to stand for the duration of their journey. They could of course complain that they paid full fare and are entitled to a seat and that they have every right to stay where they are. They could do that of course, but often they don’t. Often, they endure a bit of discomfort to help someone else. Wearing a mask in a shop or pub, or wherever, mightn’t be a terribly pleasant experience (it’s hard to read other’s facial expressions; glasses can steam up quickly; etc) but it’s hardly the Twelve Labours of Hercules!
When Jesus was quizzed by the best and brightest of the religious world concerning the Mosaic Law he summed it up by stating “Love God” and “Love your neighbour as you love yourself.” According to Jesus, all the Laws of the Torah hung upon these two. And both these Laws require you to think beyond yourself, not about yourself – either ‘up’ towards God, or ‘out’ towards others. The bubble of self must be burst.
As a denomination we are fiercely protective of the individual’s rights, but equally we are cognisant of our responsibilities to others. The question is, how do we balance this in light of these covid ‘passports’? What say you?