A response to the Ezekiel Declaration
You may have seen something called ‘The Ezekiel Declaration’ going around. It is an open letter to Scott Morrison, from some pastors. It is arguing against any vaccine passport mandate. But for those tempted to sign it, let’s assess the arguments the authors make against a vaccine passport. One of the major problems with the declaration is that it is sneaking in anti vaxx arguments. But doing this by arguing about vaccine passports
Others have already made good arguments against signing the declaration:
https://mcusercontent.com/bd13284e02ff37a82e30c8fd1/files/04c76137-f764-f746-82a3-013b9f555d02/A_response_to_the_Ezekiel_Declaration.pdf
https://davidould.net/why-we-cant-sign-the-ezekiel-declaration-an-evangelical-response/
Both articles present good reasons to avoid the Ezekiel Declaration. They show the authors of the declaration misquote evidence, amongst other things.
Here is my contribution. I cover different ground, but am also against signing it.
The author's first argument against vaccine passports is they would segregate society. And this is when they dive straight into anti vaccine territory. They use phrases like “others may have good and informed reasons for declining'. 'the vaccine rollout has been labelled as a ‘clinical trial.’” These are phrases used by anti vaxxers.
Their reasoning about creating an uneven two tiered society is also poor. They think people who choose not to get a vaccine will become ostracized and segregated. According to them it will be ‘medical apartheid.’ This is a bad analogy. Apartheid was discrimination practiced because of racism. People don’t choose their ethnicity or race. People don’t choose their gender. Segregation and discrimination based on inherent human traits is wrong.
Discriminating against people who don't take a vaccine is in no way the same as apartheid.
Their second argument is that lockdowns are hard and bad. Yes, lockdowns are hard. And bad! Yes they are creating issues of loneliness and fear amongst people. But they are also saving lives.
They present a confusing argument. Lockdowns are bad, but so are vaccine passports. But vaccine passports prove people have had a vaccine. The way out of lockdowns? Getting vaccinated. Being against vaccine passports, and being against lockdowns are opposing positions.
Even those in favour of lockdowns acknowledge they are hard. I've noticed people who want lockdowns stopped because of the mental health outcomes, don't' think about the mental health outcomes of lifting lockdowns. They rarely question the mental health impact if tens of thousands of people died of Covid. Of the mental impact on Australia’s health workers as they dealt with over flowing wards. Of people living in fear of catching Covid.
Of course, the mental health outcomes under lockdown could improve. If the government restored income support to the levels under the first lockdowns we had.
Third: It will coerce people’s consciences. The Presbyterian Church of Australia’s statement highlights the author's problem
This is not raised in the Declaration, which rather refers to those who “do not feel that we have all the information necessary to make a decision on this vaccine at this point in time” and are acting on a “principle of wisdom”. This is not an objection which is a matter of conscience, but of practical judgement and preference.
The Australian government already regulates matters of conscience. At its most basic your conscience is your sense of morality.
When I was a bartender (I made a good Margarita), the law required that I not serve people who I thought had too much to drink. I could be charged for doing so. Some people’s consciences have no objection to drinking alcohol to satiation. Yet, the government does regulate that right.
Drug usage, which is an issue of conscience, is generally regulated. Some people are ok drinking and driving. And yet the government stops that. It doesn’t matter whether you are ok with drink driving – you’re not allowed to.
As a society we have agreed in some instances we do want the government to regulate our moral behaviour. Even if it does impose on conscience.
Fourth: vaccines don’t protect anyone. This is where their anti vaxx comments are the most troublesome. Vaccines do protect people. The Astra Zeneca and Pfizer vaccines are safe and effective. I’m 34 and looking forward to my second shot of Astra Zeneca. My family have had it, and they’re fine. I’m glad they’ve had the vaccine – I know they’re at a much lower risk of death.
Yes, it is true that you can still get Covid after having had a vaccine. But you are much safe with the vaccine, than without. I saw this helpful analogy. A dry log will catch fire and spread the fire faster. It is much, much harder to get a wet log to burn and to spread fire, it will – but it’s harder. Vaccines make you safer, and they make the community safer.
Fifth: The government would force churches to refuse access to unvaccinated people. It is possible that this could happen. I don’t think churches should given cause to refuse access to anyone. But there’s been no talk of this, and no discussion of what it would look like. In the declaration their point here is that the good news of Jesus should be accessible to all.
Amen, to that, I say! But the author's don't seem to actually trust in Christ's power. The declaration comes from a place of fear. Fear of the government, and fear of vaccines. Christians have no reason to be afraid of any of those. What a terrible witness this declaration is to our faith in Christ and love for our neighbours.
Christians should be getting the vaccine. Can I make a short (I promise!) philosophical argument why?
Imagine it this way: If you choose to get the vaccine, there is a very small risk of developing blood clots. And there is an even smaller chance of dying. It's such a small risk. It's more likely lightening would strike you. But if you choose to get the vaccine, you are bearing the risk.
But if you choose not to get vaccinated, and you get Covid. Then you have transferred all the risk to the other people you will spread covid to.
This is the opposite of sacrificial love. As Christian’s we’re called to be living examples of Jesus. Pushing risk onto others is not a great example of that.
Please don’t sign this declaration if you see it.