Against Professor Parkinson's "Common Good"

So Eternity News has in typical fashion released another kiss-left-punch-right article, with some of the usual poor reasoning I have come to expect from their opinion section, from Christian statists, and from apologists for the scientific industry (which is not equivalent to science itself). There is also an attempt at gaslighting, which is becoming more common among this group. So that lay believers may be able to see through these errors, I have made this response to the claims of Professor Patrick Parkinson.

BEFORE YOU CONTINUE: Read the entirety of the article first in order to understand Prof. Parkinson's claims yourself, and to understand my own, since I won't be quoting him extensively.

I - Unabashed Well-Poisoning

Right off the bat, Parkinson commences his article with bad-faith well-poisoning. He gives an irrelevant throwback to the anti-vax movement of old and links to a decade old study that supposedly refutes an even older study that was influential in anti-vax circles. He links this to the actual topic by saying "Now, vaccination against Covid has emerged as a religious issue – at least in some theologically conservative circles."

This needs no deeper response than calling it dishonest, bad-faith well-poisoning. Why does he appeal to the anti-vax movement that existed well before covid and link it to the new opposition that has far more mixed motivations, including religious ones? What purpose does this actually serve? How is the reader informed on this new issue? Of course, Parkinson, being a law professor, knows well the power of controlling the framing, and unfortunately he exercises his knowledge to poison readers' minds against neighbours with legitimate concerns, be they medical, political, or religious. After all, Parkinson surely knows that many people are opposing vaccine mandates or personally abstaining from vaccines for reasons other than "muh vaccine make autism!", so his equation of such with regular people who just want to know what on God's good earth is being put into their bodies can only be interpreted as an insult. This without mentioning that, as a basic matter of fact, vaccines being developed for this coronavirus are wildly different from past vaccines, such as with the new mRNA transfer technology and the fact that they have had nowhere near the typical time for clinical testing before deployment, so of course people will be concerned this time. Are such questions too plebeian for the professor?

II - A Cringe Take on Ezekiel

Parkinson then takes aim at the recent Ezekiel Declaration, which directly opposes measures like vaccine coercion and implores the Prime Minister to allow individuals to act according to their conscience. Parkinson attempts to undermine the statement in a couple of ways. First, after quoting the a sentence in the Declaration on people having good and informed reasons to not be vaccinated, Parkinson adds "notwithstanding that mass vaccinations is the only alternative to lockdowns if we are going to avoid catastrophic levels of illness and death from the virus." He doesn't cite any data for this grandiose claim, nor address the awkward situation in Israel, and so relies on the reader accepting his authority. And this while Eternity News on their Facebook posts tell people who make claims contrary to official positions to cite peer-reviewed sources. The irony is palpable.

Note also that Parkinson's little quip does nothing to refute the Declaration's statement, he only gives it to chip away at the Declaration's legitimacy.

Next he claims the Declaration contains inaccuracies, and in support of this links to an article by Gospel Society & Culture. Of course, even the (selective) information provided by the author, John McClean, refutes most of his claims. For example, he quotes the Ezekiel Declaration in saying that "vaccines do not prevent infection", and that they cited a certain CDC study in support. In response, he cites other stats in the study about the vaccinated being less susceptible to hospitalisation and death. Okay... and? That was not their claim. The rhetoric by the state and their apologists is that we must minimise the spread as much as possible, and the Declaration simply points out that being vaccinated does not stop that, showing the government's plans to open up for the vaccinated to be nonsensical. McClean, and perhaps also Professor Parkinson, appear to miss the Declaration's very basic claim and instead succumb to the adrenaline of apologetics for official narratives (notwithstanding any science to the contrary). The Declaration's authors addresses the rest of McClean's false claims in their response posted by Eternity News, the same site as Parkinson's article (which came after).

Finally, Parkinson claims the Declaration offers very weak support for getting vaccinated. But so what? That was not the issue they responded to. He does the same at the end of the article when he posits that if one does not have a "genuine" conscientious objection to the vax and if the risk of side effects is "very small", getting vaccinated is the right thing to do, stating that the Ezekiel Declaration does not address this.

Does Parkinson regularly criticise public statements for what they don't intend to say? Why not? This is a mere quip to attack the declaration, not a good faith attempt to inform readers.

III - A Bald Lie Wrapped in Legalese

Professor Parkinson next gives what is arguably among the most blatant lies promoted by Christian statists; no one is being compelled to take the vaccine. This, of course, is a lie, including at the time of the article's publishing (September 8th), at which construction workers had to have been double vaccinated (bar a small list of exceptions). And as of the very next day the same applied to care workers. Additionally, teachers had been notified that they must be double injected by November 8th when schools return, or else they cannot enter their workplace (and teaching is my intended career).

So when Parkinson says no one is being compelled, he is lying, for which I call on him to repent (assuming he reads this). But, perhaps in order to avoid being called out here, he does address such restrictions based on not being injected. In addressing parents who refuse to vaccinate their children, he says the following:

"The effect of such measures is to increase the costs of non-vaccination to parents who refuse to allow their children to be immunised, but it does not, in itself, compel violation of bodily integrity."

So when he says the word "compel", be aware that he means it in a highly technical sense, that merely being unvaccinated isn't illegal. Now, I still call this a lie because he is writing an article for the common man in common parlance, not for a legal journal. Here and elsewhere, he carefully selects words on a technical basis that have broader scope in common language, 'compulsion' especially. I feel extremely compelled to be vaccinated just to get teaching work, to socialise with friends, or even worship my God in a corporate setting. Countless other people feel the same way, as I'm sure Parkinson is aware. Yet he nonetheless chooses to perpetuate a dangerous lie.

IV - Existing Requirements & Who's to Blame

Now, elsewhere in this section (under "Governments may withhold benefits or impose restrictions on the unvaccinated."), he makes numerous other assertions, some of which are actually true and highlight how the Church has been asleep at the wheel. Among these is his claim that he can't recall church leaders ever being upset at vaccines being required for children. First thing to note is that these examples he raises are highly specific in their requirements and in their effects, such as that unvaccinated children may be required to kept home in the event of an outbreak (presumably at the school specifically), a scenario both highly specific and highly uncommon. While I believe enforcing this by law (assuming it is the case) would be beyond the God-given authority of the state, it may be something we can tolerate as believers while we survive in a godless state and do God's work. Nonetheless, the principle of his point is very valid. Our leaders have been on sleep mode while the godless state extends its tendrils beyond what God ordained it for and into every conceivable area of life, from education to health and beyond. Even the little infringements have pushed the envelope and made possible the crisis we are in today.

The Professor continues on with his analogy to vaccination requirements for children and then attempts to link it to our situation by asserting that the costs of non-vaccination for a highly infectious disease "are borne by everyone who might come into contact with an infected person." This, of course, is an absurd lie. For this to be true, the Professor must demonstrate that every single unvaccinated person has been infected and has always spread the virus guaranteed to others around them. Factually speaking, that is not the case; countless millions of interactions over the past two years have occurred between unvaccinated persons, and still a vast minority of the population have been infected with Covid-19, and an even tinier minority have experienced annoying or harmful symptoms. Now, the only way this would not be a lie is if by "costs" Mr. Parkinson meant "risk of infection and harm", which would still make his argument utterly bereft of meaningful impact, because as he himself admits, vaccinated persons "with a high viral load" may still spread the virus. Thus, if 'costs' are defined as mere risk, then everyone bears costs of coming into contact with anyone, vaccinated or not.

Parkinson then gives a few paragraphs on the rights of employers to mandate vaccination on his employees, but I won't give much here. TL;DR I believe employers have total control of their own business, so it is there right to potentially kill off their work force by mandating vaccinations.

V - Gaslighting the Conscience

Parkinson's take on the question of conscience is among the most erroneously argued and partisan sections of this article. The first four paragraphs are not too significant, if still characteristically cherrypicked on the authorities to cite. But the final two paragraphs are among the most ridiculous attempts to gaslight conscientious objectors to vaccination I have ever seen. And this time I will quote them in full:

"Let’s be clear though. If I object to taking a vaccine because I am worried about side-effects, or because I am concerned that it is insufficiently tested, I am not objecting on moral or conscientious grounds. I am making a decision based upon my assessment of the risks versus the benefits to myself on medical grounds. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that such a judgment is a religious one. The Bible gives us no guidance whatsoever on the medical efficacy or benefit of a new vaccine. A religious person who has an objection to a vaccine does not have a religious objection by reason only of the fact that he or she happens to be religious.

A religious person who has a non-religious objection to vaccination is absolutely entitled to refuse a violation of his or her bodily integrity; but this does not mean that governments and employers are not justified in imposing restrictions to protect others, so long as the restrictions are reasonable. These are difficult times, and difficult judgments have to be made, respecting people’s right to consent or refuse consent to a medical intervention while doing what is necessary to protect others."

This statement alone is so theologically inept I am still pondering whether it may also be straight up heresy. Objecting to the ingestion of substances because of perceived insufficient safety or perhaps even knowledge of certain dangers is by nature highly religious. Scripture establishes the principle that our bodies are temples, as explicitly stated by Paul (1st Cor. 6:19 - 20), and that they are living sacrifices offered unto God (Rom. 12:1), to give just two examples. Now, the immediate contexts of these passages are unrelated (1st Corinthians 6 regards sexual immorality, and Romans 12 about general non-conformity to the world), but they present to us key principles that can be applied elsewhere. Since our body is a temple and a sacrifice that is pleasing to God (in Israel this would be a spotless lamb), it is paramount that we care for our body physically; we exercise, eat well, work, and so on. I doubt anyone would object to this. But this also includes what substances we inject for medical purposes; what if it's dangerous for a person in question? It thus follows that if someone refuses a vaccine on the grounds of not knowing its long term effects or perhaps even being convinced of negative effects, that is most certainly a religious objection, because God's temple must be cared for to the uttermost and one cannot ingest unknown substances; that is showing negligence for the body. Parkinson's attempt to dichotomise medical and religious objections is thoroughly dishonest.

His second paragraph is equally absurd. Throughout the article, but in particular this paragraph, Parkinson shows a total lack of thought towards the defined role and jurisdiction of government according to scripture. Worse still is his utter lack of defining what a "reasonable" restriction is; for all we know, "reasonable" is defined by the magisterium of his mind. Scripture, however, precludes any such restrictions on those not shown to be sick, because the state's role is strictly in the realm of punishing evil; justice. Such is what the blessed Paul writes in his letter to the Roman Church, wherein he defines the state as "God’s servant to administer punishment on the person who does wrong." (Rom. 13:4). The state is not a regulator, it has not been given the right to punish people for no wrongdoing on the grounds of speculation. The state is God's servant of wrath upon the evil doer, which Paul says the one who does good need not fear (Rom. 13:3). Likewise the blessed Peter defines the ruling authorities as those whom "he [God] commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good." (1 Peter 2:14). Contra the hordes of simpletons who read "submit to the government" as an absolutist legislation with zero nuance, this submission is specifically qualified within a given jurisdiction; it must be, lest you come to many absurd and incoherent conclusions.

Case in point, the command for wives to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22), and to one's spiritual leaders (Heb. 13:17). Are these commands a blank cheque for absolute power from these authorities? Does a husband have the right to demand taxes from his wife? To imprison her for smoking pot? Does a pastor have the right to do either of those? Or to make it more relevant, does submitting to my doctor in medical contexts give him the right to fine me for jaywalking? Obviously not, because it is understood without argument that such acts of submission are specific to their given jurisdictions. This can be readily understood with ground-level common sense, but is apparently lost on many of the academically inclined. Worse still, some believe we must not resist even if the state does genuinely overstep its powers and oppress the people (see Todd Friel's bizarre take). If you believe this, then you must affirm that wives cannot resist a husband who beats them; you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Now, not all Christian Statists believe in zero resistance whatsoever, but their view is still contradicted by holy scripture; the state has a specific role, and we must submit to it when it exercises in its God-given jurisdiction. We are not called to submit when it acts outside of its given jurisdiction; such is illegitimate, in the same way that a secretary does not have the right to perform heart surgery and order around assisting doctors. When put that way, limited government becomes shockingly obvious. And when we read Parkinsons's claims with this understanding, his shocking ignorance of God's will on this topic becomes too egregious not to laugh at.

And all of this without addressing his unevidenced assumptions that these state restrictions are "what is necessary to protect others". Respectfully, this is horse crap. In a zero restriction environment, no one is forced to go to highly populated areas, or to the supermarket when it is packed out. Contrary to what the Branch Covidians think about us regular folk, we are capable of cost-benefit analysis and making decisions; we have done so since the beginning of civilization. If someone is so paranoid as to assume everyone could have Covid, then they can choose to do exactly what was enforced in our prior lockdown; it's their choice. So, no, lockdowns are absolutely not necessary for saving lives, you can do everything the state has already forced you to do but voluntarily. Not to mention that Parkinson shows zero consideration for the colossal harms of lockdowns that I myself have felt, eclipsing what I was statistically likely to suffer with Covid given my age and health. Parkinson and other Branch Covidians think in one metric and one metric alone; Covid deaths. Someone could drop a nuke on Melbourne and call it an improvement, because now Covid cases in Melbourne have reached zero.

VI - Muh Experts

In the article's final section, Parkinson asserts that the issue of vaccination should be discussed by churches from a biblical perspective, which I say goes without question. He gives two major factors that underpin his support of such.

First, the question of trust of authorities. Parkinson expresses what he believes is a necessary trust in "responsible governments" and "well-qualified health experts", giving himself as an example of having not researched the full developmental history of medications he has taken, but trusting in doctors who vouch for their efficacy. He then provides a manifest false dichotomy in saying he would rather trust "top regulatory authorities... who have looked closely at the science" than "the conspiracy theorist on YouTube or the talkback radio host, who has not.". To top it off, he asserts that such regulatory authorities "are surely part of the infrastructure of government, endorsed as being for our good in Romans 13.". He then ends this point claiming we ought to trust such experts unless we have compelling reasons otherwise.

The problems with this otherwise short explanation are manifold. First, he begs the question when asserting trust in "responsible governments". Surely Parkinson knows that countless Australians do not believe our government is acting responsibly, that it is acting beyond its proper boundaries and illegitimately suppressing science inconvenient to certain financial interests. The Professor is most certainly in an ivory tower, but surely not so high up that he can't see the torches and pitchforks at the bottom.

On his false dichotomy, I need only ask Parkinson. How about those who have "looked closely" at the science and have come out sceptical of certain vaccines? Would the Professor give them the time of day? Or is he an epistemic authoritarian ("my personally preferred experts say X therefore X is true")? When multiple entities who have both "looked closely at the science" on any issue come to opposite conclusions, how can Parkinson legitimately decide between either one? After all, he has already disqualified his own scientific ability in declaring he is "neither a doctor nor a chemist".

Additionally, there are genuine reasons for not blindly trusting bodies like the FDA or TGA. For instance, the Covid position statement of AHPRA (Australia's main medical practitioner regulator) makes this threat (emphasis mine):

"Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action."

I would link to the statement, but at present (17/10/2021) it appears to have been removed entirely. Curious. But luckily I downloaded the PDF before this happened, so if you want the document yourself, hit me up.

But consider what this means. The very doctors that the Professor says we ought to trust are barred by our top medical authority from expressing scepticism of the efficacy of any Covid vaccines, and I have confirmed this from the witness of people I know, that doctors cannot ascribe causality of clear vaccine side-effects to a vaccine itself. How on earth, then, can we trust *any* doctors here in Australia when their very license to practice is threatened by giving someone advise contrary to the regulator? Trust is predicated upon the trusted person coming to a reasoned conclusion from the evidence they have. But doctors are being forced to a certain conclusion and cannot say otherwise. By definition, this makes them untrustworthy, even if they are not malicious and are just trying to protect their livelihood.

By far the most laughable claim in this paragraph is his appeal to Romans 13, but you need only refer to my above take down of his prior appeal to the passage, particularly the issue of jurisdiction. But I will ask Parkinson this; did any the Roman government, or any local administration in Paul's time, include medical regulators?

Note how nowhere in this reply have I given my judgement on vaccine efficacy or safety. I could believe that Pfizer, AZ, and Moderna are the elixirs of the gods, and still the Professor's reasoning would be poor.

VII - Placate Your Neighbour

Parkinson's final argument advances the biblical statement most abused by statist apologists; love your neighbour. He at least gives criteria for when one ought to be vaccinated; having no "genuine" conscientious objection (note that as he explains earlier, protecting one's body is not a "genuine" religious objection), and the risk of side effects being very small. The first criteria is readily filled by virtually anyone uncertain about the effects of a vaccine on *their* body or even convinced of negative effects. I emphasise *their* body because it does genuinely depend on the nature of a person's body, which is why one's personal doctor's advise is paramount above any broad study. This also covers his second criteria, unless he wishes to point to perceived objective facts about side-effects risk instead of a person's own informed judgement, which would then lead me to ask him for his evidence (remember, he is "neither a doctor nor a chemist").

His final argument is the same "get vaxxed to protect others" fallacy from earlier, but with some Jesus sprinkled in to guilt the reader more. I'll quote him here:

"is not this the right thing to do, not only for myself and my loved ones, but also for my neighbour and all those in this country devastated by the effect of lockdowns? ...
Yes, Christ asks me to take care of my body; but he does not ask me to put my own interests so far ahead of the interests of others. In the absence of a genuine moral objection, the right to give or withhold consent to medical treatment should not be used to justify a failure to love my neighbour by playing my small part in reducing the spread and impact of this devastating new illness."

So he is subtly repeating the government's own gaslighting lie; the unvaccinated are keeping the state locked down. That is, of course, a lie; unvaccinated persons are not ascending the podium before the press and announcing a new gathering limit or curfew. It is politicians who look at numbers, give their ear to "experts", and make a decision accordingly. Support lockdowns all you want, cheer about the destruction of lives all day; just don't lie about who is causing it. 

Professor Parkinson implicitly throws fellow believers under the bus in defence of the godless state. Why? And yet again we have to ask, if vaccination is so effective, why are you afraid of the unvaccinated putting the vaccinated in danger? Perhaps he will mention groups who cannot be vaccinated, to which I would raise once again the ancient and obvious reality of personal responsibility; if someone medically cannot take a vaccine and does not want to take an (extremely small) risk by hanging with unvaccinated persons, they can make that choice themselves. Conversely, if they accept the (extremely small) risk, they can make that choice. No one is forcing at risk persons to congregate.

ADDENDUM (22/10/2021): We also need to ask those who make the "some people can't be vaccinated!!" argument (which may or may not include the Professor) whether they argued this same principle before 2020 to people who had not been vaccinated against influenza doing the same to the especially vulnerable. I suspect that many never did, and that this is not an argument based on genuine principle, but a post-facto rationalisation of one's blind obedience to state and media claims.

Conclusion

Why, on one hand, does Parkinson blame conscientious objectors for their own loss of work yet does not blame persons voluntarily out and about for potentially being infected by an unvaccinated person? Why is he so adamant to scapegoat the unvaccinated for our state's woes? This, combined with Parkinson's unbiblical devotion to the state, is the core worldview error supporting this whole article. It is a-priori for Parkinson that the state does no wrong; it can stretch its tendrils into all areas of life, and the insurmountable burden of proof is on the person who questions this overreach. The Professor is willing to ostracize and scapegoat fellow believers exercising their God-given jurisdiction over their bodies for legitimate reasons given what they know. He, and many others at Eternity News and other major "Christian" organisations, are apologists for the state. What he promotes is effectively state worship, for he renders unto Caesar what is not his, and for this he must repent.