The Secular Creed of Jabs and Safeism

While no one wants to be responsible for making another person sick, the state education system of Tasmania has succumbed to the current zeitgeist of state paternalism. A good example of what this looks like in Tasmania right now is, under the good intention of protecting people from COVID-19, the rights of teachers and students have been systemically stripped away. And by so doing, they are now enduring a modern form of medical apartheid. As senator Eric Abetz wrote last year:

Our authorities need to respect freedom and not create a two-tier society. The right to a job should not be dependent on a jab. By all means convince but don’t coerce. By all means educate, but don’t discriminate. Protecting freedoms – including of those with whom we might disagree is vital. Our failure to do so will have corrosive long-term consequences.

While no one wants to be responsible for making another person sick, the state education system of Tasmania has succumbed to what theologian James White calls, safeism. White put it this in a tweet last year:

Senator Abetz is not alone in his opposition to vaccine mandates. Jonno Duniam is another Tasmanian politician who, while supporting vaccinations, does not agree with the principle and effect of making it mandatory. Duniam recently wrote, “There must be a way in the 21st century to not exclude people from huge parts of life because of a decision they’ve taken about their own medical choices.”

Significantly, Abetz and Duniam are two of the only politicians in Tasmania to support freedom of conscience in response to an ever-increasing government control, and of even more concern, state paternalism. For example, the University of Tasmania (UTAS), in contrast to the majority of Australia’s other universities, as well as the state education department of Tasmania, have mandated that staff at all state schools be vaccinated against COVID-19. And at UTAS this also includes all students!

By comparison, the Catholic Church of Tasmania is continuing to give their teachers, staff and students the freedom to choose. This courageous stance to protect an individual’s decision regarding their own health is something they are to be commended for. According to Dr. Gerard Gaskin of Catholic Education Tasmania, “With our staff voluntary vaccination at 98 per cent, this response already exceeds the state level’’.  So, it’s not like the Catholic Church could be accused of promoting anti-vax sentiment.

While I am not anti-vaccination per se, I can understand why a number of people remain vax-hesitant. I was scheduled to receive the AstraZeneca vaccine, but only a few days before the appointment I was informed by the government that it was unsafe for those under 60 to do so.

However, ours is not the first generation to wrestle with the question of ‘vaccine passports.’ Back in 1880, Abraham Kuyper, the then-prime minister of the Netherlands, eminent Protestant theologian and leader in the development of Christian education, argued that compulsory vaccination against diseases even such as small pox ‘should be out of the question’. Kuyper gave a number of powerful arguments:

♦ Our physicians may be mistaken and government may never stamp a particular medical opinion as orthodox and, therefore, binding.

♦ Government should keep its hands off our bodies.

♦ Government must respect the conscientious objections of its citizens.

♦ Either it does not itself believe in vaccination, or if it does, it will do redundant work by proceeding to protect once more those already safeguarded against an evil that will no longer have a hold on them anyway.

Kuyper’s argument could be simplified as follows: If the government doesn’t think that vaccines are effective then why make them mandatory? Alternatively, if they are effective, why should the vaccinated be afraid of the unvaccinated since they supposedly work in protecting one against the disease? Hence, it is wrong to legislate compulsory vaccination. As Kuyper concludes:

Vaccination certificates will therefore have to go … The form of tyranny hidden in these vaccination certificates is just as real a threat to the nation’s spiritual resources as a smallpox epidemic itself.

Smallpox was a lot deadlier than COVID. During the 18th century alone, the disease killed an estimated 400,000 Europeans each year, including five reigning monarchs, and was responsible for a third of all blindness. Between 20 per cent and 60 per cent of all those infected—and over 80 per cent of infected children—died from the disease. That figure is all the more significant when one considers that COVID-19 thankfully poses a negligible-to-minute risk to children.

Kuyper saw the problem with mandatory vaccinations more than a hundred years ago. Unfortunately, many secular leaders in education and politics have failed to learn the lesson. Freedom of conscience must be protected. It is one of the central tenants of a classic liberal democracy. And unlike the University of Tasmania, it’s good that there are still some churches and elected officials who are still prepared to lead the way.

Mark Powell is pastor of the Cornerstone Presbyterian Church in Hobart

7 thoughts on “The Secular Creed of Jabs and Safeism

  • rosross says:

    Any mandatory medical treatment is a crime against humanity. Any mandatory medical experiment is an evil of far greater proportions. When we do not have authority over our own body, then our rights as humans are denied.

    People were marching in the streets centuries ago in protest at vaccine mandates. Smallpox vaccines spread disease, killed a lot of people and according to the Royal Commission in the UK, led to a resurgence of Leprosy.

    The Report of the Royal Commission
    First question – Does the Report (or Reports, for there is a Minority Report) confirm the disputed claim that vaccination is a beneficial operation, worthy of, and still ought to command, public confidence? Which we think NOT
    Should it be compulsory?..NO

    For the following reasons.
    1. that vaccination is no protection whatsoever against smallpox,
    2. that it does not mitigate smallpox,
    3. that it is the prolific cause or vehicle of other disease.
    4. the enormous increase of leprosy during the last fifty years synchronises with the enforcement of vaccination.

    “I am convinced that Vaccination is the greatest mistake and delusion in the science of medicine; a fanciful illusion in the mind of the discoverer; a phenomenal apparition devoid of scientific foundation, and wanting in all the conditions of scientific possibility” Dr Joseph Hermann, Head Physician to the Imperial Hospital, Vienna 1858- 64

    And yet the Vaccine cult could not be stopped due to the growing power of the scientific system sourced in materialist reductionist beliefs which insisted all was mechanical, even humans.

    The claims made for vaccines as miracles are not supported by historical data. And by the time modern vaccines came on the market there was no need for them anyway. But the Juggernaut by then could not be halted and the rest as they say, is history.

    Early in the last century, measles killed millions of people a year. Then, bit by bit in countries of the developed world, the death rate dropped, by the 1960s by 98% or more. In the U.K., it dropped by an astounding 99.96%. And then, the measles vaccine entered the market. Lawrence Solomon, The Untold Story of Measles.

    Never let facts get in the way of propaganda, particularly when power and profit are to be gained.

  • Michael says:

    The problems with mandatory, population-wide vaccination are so fundamental and obvious that I am both amazed and profoundly disappointed that this language and policy has been so readily adopted across many of the once liberal democracies.

  • rod.stuart says:

    I’m not convinced one way or the other on vaccines.
    However, in the case of the current turmoil, anti-vaccine is a moot point, since there is NO VACCINE for Covid 19.
    The reasons that mandatory injections of a pointless, experimental concoction of God knows what include:
    a) It is contrary to the Nuremburg cCode.
    b) It is contrary to the Helsinki Agreement
    c) It is contrary to the Biosecurity Act
    d) It is contrary to the Privacy Act to require one to divulge whether one has been “treated” with the poison or not.
    e) Discrimination in relation to the injections is contrary to the Disability act.
    f) It is immoral.
    These pieces of legislation and treaties were fcreated for a purpose. It is not the province of some senseless bureaucrat ( Sutton, Chant, and Young, we’re looking at you) to dictate this questionable medical procedure.
    Furthermore, this poison is regularly dished out WITHOUT INFORMED CONSENT. Who in their right mind would consent to a procedure that does not work, in fact makes the victim MORE susceptible to the illness, and carries a very significant risk of injury (as evidence in the databases VAERS, DAEN, Yellow card system, EU/EEA). VAERS alone contains over a million adverse events, and 20,000 deaths, with an estimated under reporting ratio of 40. Adverse events with this toxic concoction are 20,000 times the cumulative adverse events of all other actual vaccines over the last thirty years.
    If a logical person were given this information, would they consent?

  • rosross says:

    Kuyper saw a problem with mandatory vaccinations a century ago and one of Australia’s most noted scientist-physicians, Nobel Laureate virologist, Sir MacFarlane Burnet said more than half a century ago that vaccination programmess could have negative effects long-term.

    He said that genetics, nutrition, psychological and environmental factors (ecological medicine) may play a more important role in resistance to disease than the assumed benefits of artificial immunity induced by vaccination procedures (Burnet 1952 p106).

    He suggested that in years to come society may have to reassess the belief scientists were placing in vaccination. He considered that genetic deterioration of the population may be a consequence of universal mass vaccination campaigns and he postulated that ‘some of our modern successes in preventative and curative medicine may on the longest view be against the best interests of the state’ (Burnet 1952 p107).
    Burnet (1952) believed that genetic constitution was the most important hidden variable in disease statistics. Gilbert (2004) reinforces this theory with a new definition of environmental health that emphasises the importance of genetic potential to health outcomes from environmental hazards. This is described in chapter 2. It is possible that the genetics and health of the population are at risk if these factors are not considered in the preventative strategies that are adopted in the control of infectious diseases. Burnet FM. 1952. The Pattern of Disease in Childhood. Australasian Annals of Medicine. 1: 2: pp93-107.

  • talldad says:

    Kuyper’s argument could be simplified as follows: If the government doesn’t think that vaccines are effective then why make them mandatory? Alternatively, if they are effective, why should the vaccinated be afraid of the unvaccinated since they supposedly work in protecting one against the disease?

    Receiving two or three doses of the so-called vaccine (which label besmirches real vaccines) is compulsory, but the compulsion never goes to actual immunity, only to evidence of injections.

    The unwarranted and increasingly doubtful assumption is that the jabs equal protection/immunity while all else (including sunshine (D3), diet, vitamin supplements and alternative therapies such as IVM and HCQ) represents a danger to others.

  • Brenden T Walters says:

    It’s starting to look like the jab is more harmful than the virus. Am I right. Is there any evidence to suggest that children are harmed by the jab?

Leave a Reply