Category Archives: The Sleep of Reason

Raging Hate Machines

Death of Truth, Hate, Right-wing Extremism, The Sleep of Reason

 

In the documentary film The Brain Washing of My Dad Jen Senko’s father started to listen to Rush Limbaugh on a small portable radio with ear buds. He was in business—ready to attack the world. At least the part of the world that was sane.

 

Then, as his daughter Jen Senko said, “it got worse when he discovered Fox News. It was like he had joined a cult or a new religion.” He started sending links to hateful stories to his relatives and acquaintances.

 

Jen Senko wondered if he really was brain-washed. She was determined to figure it out. So she made a film about her father and his changes. She found similar stories from around the country. She realized this issue went far beyond just her father and his wild politics. There were bitter and angry people everywhere.  Loving and caring people from around the country were turning into raging hate machines. What was going on? She wanted to know. So do I.

 

She concluded that ordinary people around the country had become raging hate machines after listening to and watching right-wing media. First it was right-wing talk radio, then it was cable TV, particularly Fox News.

 

Hillary Clinton referred to it as a vast right-wing conspiracy. She, of course, along with her husband, were 2 of its biggest victims.

 

Jen said when Reagan was elected president in 1980 she noticed the country going into what she called a more hardened place. This was also the time when her father started to change from fun loving to hating.

The Brain-washing of My Dad

Death of Truth, Right-wing Extremism, The Sleep of Reason, Trumpism

 

A few years ago at documentary film festival in Winnipeg I watched an extraordinary film. It was called, alluringly, “The Brain Washing of my Dad.” I have often thought about it wishing to see it again. Then I realized you can watch it on You-Tube and I watched it again. it was worth the revisit.

This documentary film was written, directed, narrated, and produced by Jen Senko, a documentary filmmaker. It is a fascinating film.

Senko called the film a “Family Non-fiction Film.” In that film she described the father of her youth as a kind and friendly man, a goofy man, who never had an unkind word to say about anyone.  He never said anything bad about any group of people. He never demonstrated any racism for example. He was a truck driver who loved his family and his children who loved him. He was an ideal dad who took his kids on camping trips that gave them memories for their entire life. Sort of like my Dad!

Of course, the father, like a friend of mine, another long distance trucker who introduced me to Rush Limbaugh,  also drove a lot on long commutes listening to American talk radio. As I had already learned it was a cauldron of hate. Particularly as my friend, the long distance trucker also told me, “I listened to Rush Limbaugh because he kept me awake.”  This was a radio show without punches being pulled. It was real life radio. And it was filled with visceral hate against liberals, Democrats, elites, and a bit more subtly, blacks. Radio like that could keep a trucker awake, even if he, or later, she, had driven too long without proper sleep. It was never boring and kept one engaged.

Senko told the story of how when she was a young girl walking with her young sister and her dad and they encountered a homeless black man sitting on a sidewalk. The man held out his cup asking for help. Asking for change. She said her father gave him money. So much money it seemed like a lot to her. Of course, she was young, and young people are often overly impressed by sums of money. But actually, what impressed her more was the fact that her father called the homeless black man “Sir.”  He showed him so much respect it struck her as surprising. Her father was teaching his two daughters to treat everybody with respect. This was a valuable life lesson.

She said her family was not really political. She described her father as “a non-political Kennedy Democrat.”[1] And they lived in Arizona! But that did not last.  “When my father started listening to talk radio, I saw him change. A lot.”

It was an extraordinary film.    Here is an excerpt:

“In the 1960s Jen Senko’s Dad never had a bad word to say about any race or people or person. Then in the 80s after my Dad discovered talk radio, he suddenly didn’t like black people, poor people, gay people, feminists Hispanics and especially Democrats. After he discovered Fox News they became the enemy.”

 

Through the documentary film Jen Senko tries to show the transformation of her father from a non-political Democrat to an angry fanatical hate-filled Republican. How did that happen?

Yet the film is really much more than that. The film is not really just about one man who was brain-washed, it is really about a country that was boondoggled.

The Land of Fantasies

Death of Truth, Epidemics/Pandemics, Health, Mennonites, reason, The Sleep of Reason, Trust and Distrust

 

I thought I was done with posting about vaccines, measles, and Mennonites in Canada. It turns out that was not quite the case.

I just read yesterday in CBC News that Alberta has confirmed that it now has more measles cases than the entire United States even though it is 60 times larger than Alberta! How is that possible?

 By now you know my theory. Alberta is home to a stupendous number of true believers–credulous people who don’t need evidence to support their beliefs.  The funny thing is that Alberta has always been that as long as I have known about it.

In the 50s the big craze was Social Credit.  Albertans believed the whacky political leaders who came up with crackpot economic theories. They believed them wholeheartedly. And of course, many of those believers were Mennonites. Social Credit ruled in Alberta for decades as a result of the devotion of Albertans. Many Mennonites in Manitoba espoused those theories too.  I remember Social Credit rallies in Steinbach when I was growing up.

In the last couple of years Alberta has given birth to the truckers convoy and their fantasies.

In the entire United States they have had 1,288 measles cases. That’s a lot for a disease that was considered eradicated. Alberta has now had 1,314 cases. That is an astounding comparison given that the US has more than 60 times as many people.

 

I know some people think measles is a pipsqueak disease but of those cases, Dr. Lynora Saxinger, an infectious disease specialist, told CBC News, “there have been 102 hospitalizations, including 15 ICU admissions, as of July 5. No deaths have been reported.” And this is all for a disease that should be eradicated, except for the vaccine deniers who refuse to take the available treatment.  There is no good reason for that to happen, but too many people in Alberta have not been listening to the health experts but instead have been “doing their own research.”

 Is it really a good idea to do your own research?

We don’t always have the time or ability to test scientific ideas. Can you imagine going to make an appointment to see a dentist and then insisting he or she tell you in advance what anesthetic they use so you can do your own research on line to determine whether your dentist was right or wrong? How could I possibly do better research than my dentist who has gone to many years of university to learn things like that.

 

I know experts are not always right, but is it likely that we will do a better job of choosing the right anesthetic? Or the right treatment for measles? Or polio? I really can’t match that expertise. Expertise is important. We should never be slaves to experts, but unless we have good reasons, and by that I mean rational reasons, based on evidence, to the contrary, we should believe them.

 

It is the same with vaccines. How can I know which vaccines are good for me or not?  That is not an easy job. Most of us, I would submit, are not qualified to do the research ourselves on line. Rather, I would submit, get a physician you know and trust, and follow the advice you get. That’s what I do.  Now if I have carefully researched an issue and rationally concluded my doctor was wrong and I was right I should not follow the physician’s  advice, but I would say this won’t happen often. If I am entrusting my child’s health to my own “research” rather than my doctor’s research I had better be awfully sure I am right and she or he is wrong. Otherwise would I not I be guilty of child abuse in not following the good advice if my child was harmed?

We should not be a slave to experts; nor should we be blind to their benefits.

 

Evidence not Faith

Death of Truth, Epidemics/Pandemics, Health, Mennonites, The Sleep of Reason, Trust and Distrust, Vaccines

 

That respected American philosopher Archie Bunker  proudly claimed to have robust faith. In fact, it was so robust, he said, that “faith is something that you believe that no one in his right mind would believe.”

 

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche did not go quite so far as Bunker did. He did not value faith. He challenged it. He said, “Faith” means not wanting to know what is true.”

 

Because faith or even belief can interfere with the search for truth, we have to be constantly vigilant against pre-conceived beliefs and their pernicious effect.  Nietzsche says that “great spirits are skeptics.” Nietzsche also had nothing but contempt for people of faith, because they believe what they want to be true, not what the evidence convinces them is true. I know many of my readers will strongly disagree with that. He also said, “Men of conviction are not worthy of the least consideration in fundamental questions of value and disvalue. Convictions are prisons.”

 

Of course, it is not easy to keep our minds free from our wants, interests, and preconceptions—convictions in other words.  That takes great work. We have to sculpt ourselves as the ideal observer. The ideal observer is the one who knows everything relevant, is free from animus, and free from bias. In other words, we have to recognize our interests and keep them at bay. Bias and prejudice are extreme barriers to finding the truth. It is never easy to be unbiased. It is always extremely difficult. We also need the best information and must not let hatred interfere with our judgment. We will never achieve the status of the ideal observer but we must come as close as we can. Then we can be satisfied that our judgements are valid. Only the best and strongest can do it well. That is why Nietzsche said “Freedom from all kinds of convictions, to be able to see freely, is part of strength.” And also, only the great-souled person can accomplish it.

 

Attacking one’s own convictions is the basis of critical thinking. No truths must be seen as sacred.  We must be willing to challenge them all.   Nietzsche also said, “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.” That is why Nietzsche asks, “Is there any contrast at all between a lie and a conviction?” Or, “in the son that becomes conviction which in the father still was a lie.”

 

For exactly the same reasons Nietzsche rejected all parties. He was always an independent thinker. He was never a party man, because then he would have to subordinate his free search for the truth to the platform of the party. He refused to do that, just as he refused to have faith. That is why he said, “Now this wishing-not-to-see what one does see, is almost the first condition for all who are party in any sense. Of necessity the party man becomes a liar.” Members of the party believe what they are told to believe, whether there is evidence to support the belief or not.

 

Parties in this sense can be very informal too. For example, there is the party of those who believe in the efficacy of vaccines.  They automatically believe vaccines are good. I have to admit I am close to this. I remember as a wee lad fearing the deadly disease of polio. When a vaccine was discovered and made available, I was overjoyed. It was a miracle I thought. And it was—a scientific miracle. But that was not faith either. As a result, I tend to automatically think vaccines are good for me. But if I find credible evidence that my belief in the efficacy of a vaccine is wrong, I must be willing to change. If we have faith, we stick to it, even if the evidence suggests otherwise. That is not something I want to do in important matters that require my attention to make a decision. I don’t want faith. I want the evidence.

 

I don’t really want to have faith to make such a decision. I want evidence evidence available, which is usually scientific evidence. That is not faith.  Faith is what we use when there is insufficient evidence to make a decision.  Then we must make the decision in favor of what is most likely. That means, we make the best decision we can in the light of that evidence. That really is not faith either. That is making the best judgment we can. Once evidence becomes available we will follow that. If that evidence is contrary to our earlier belief we must change.

For most of us, this is not what our Mennonite mothers taught us.

 

 

Mennonite Mothers are to Blame

Conspiracy Theories, Critical thinking, Death of Truth, Epidemics/Pandemics, Ethics, Health, Mennonites, Philosophy/Ideas, Rebel, religion, The Sleep of Reason, Trust and Distrust

 

Let’s get back to Mennonites.  We have noticed that in many places in North America the resurgence of measles on account of vaccine resistance has occurred in areas with a large number of Mennonites. Why is that? Is that a coincidence?

In my view, the problem is that many Mennonites live in a culture of belief. What I mean by that is that often Mennonites robustly indoctrinate their young. From a very early age, Mennonite mothers (and of course fathers) are careful to foster Christian faith in their offspring. They teach those children that they must have faith. Faith in God and the inerrant word of God evinced in the Christian Bible. I know that many religious groups do the same thing, but Mennonites definitely do and they do it thoroughly. Their children must believe what they believe without evidence.

 

Personally, I consider this a mistake. That is a very bad habit to get into. By doing that Mennonites (and others who do it too) shackle their children. If parents don’t give their children the opportunity to think for themselves their children will not learn to think for themselves in the real world. They won’t learn if they are not given the opportunity. That means they must be allowed to make their own mistakes. Even if we think they are wrong. We should give them evidence to encourage them to change their minds. Not indoctrination. Children must learn to think and think critically. This is true even when it comes to important matters such as choosing to believe or not to believe what their parents have taught them. In fact, this thinking skill is most important in the most important matters.

If children do not learn to think for themselves, they will be constant prey for charlatans, con-men, and hucksters.  That goes for religious hucksters as well. And there are legions of them. They are ubiquitous. It is much better for children to learn to think for themselves and make decisions based on evidence and logical arguments or inferences rather than faith inculcated by their parents. Thinking is a good habit to get into. Believing without evidence is a very bad habit to get into. I know when we are very young we need to believe our parents to keep us out of children or get hurt. But when we are old enough we must learn to think for ourselves or we will be in big trouble. And if enough children overly credulous when they get older society will be in trouble.

Those are skills that are worth much more than any belief. Such skills are literally invaluable.  That is what parents should teach their young charges.

To take away their right and obligation to think for themselves is to rob them of what they will most need after their parents are gone, namely, the ability to think and overcome challenges which they will inevitably meet. I know parents mean well when they try to inculcate their children, but they are misguided when they do it after their children are old enough to think for themselves. And to the extent they are old enough, they should be allowed to make decisions for themselves.

It is only by trying to think that we can learn to cultivate a spirit of questioning, of scrutinizing evidence, of weighing evidence and making rational decisions.  These are the skills children will need as they grow and have to make important decision such as whether or not to take vaccines. Robbing children of that skill could be considered child abuse, because it robs them of one of the most important skills they will ever need and they will otherwise be unable to learn.

Parents can guide such learning and offer help to them in learning these skills, but to take away their decision-making power is unfair to them.

Children must also learn to avoid the trap of wishful thinking. It is one of the easiest traps to fall into. The most difficult thing in the world is to disbelieve what you want to be true.  The easiest thing in the world is to believe what you want to be true.

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said it was not important to have the courage of one’s convictions. It was much more important to have the courage to attack one’s convictions.”  That is what we have to learn to do. That is the basis of critical thinking. It is perhaps its  most important element.  Nietzsche also said, “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”

He also said, “if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire”

Nietzsche realized he was radical in this respect. He showed thinking is fun. He said, “I am dynamite.” I think he meant to say that he was on this earth to break up encrusted ‘truths.’ He was here to attack them, to expose them.

I think many Mennonite mothers, but not all of them, and many Mennonite fathers, but again not all of them, have taught their children to believe what they have been indoctrinated to believe, and that is a dangerous thing as is shown by the fact that too many Mennonite children  have refused to believe measles vaccines are better for them than the alternatives, such as, in extreme cases, such as the woman in Ontario, eating wild flowers.

 

 

Infectious Beliefs

Ethics, Philosophy/Ideas, reason, religion, The Sleep of Reason, Vaccines

 

The British philosopher William Kingdon Clifford said “we should not believe anything except those propositions for which we have good evidence and that the confidence we place in our beliefs should be proportional to the amount of evidence that supports them.”  According to Clifford we have a moral duty to engage in the hard work of looking at science, or our own good work in order to consult the best available evidence conscientiously and honestly before we commit to believing.

 

We have to be open-minded. That means that we have to be willing to accept evidence that contradicts our cherished beliefs or that contradicts those propositions we would really like to be true and we must be willing to discard or modify them if the evidence entails such actions. Only on that basis are we entitled to belief something. Only on that basis can a belief be ethical.

 

The fundamental basis for Clifford’s position is that the harm, the evil, the tyranny, the cruelty of humanity is a function of our superstitions, ignorance, and prejudices. As German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said, “we have to have not the courage of our convictions; we have to have the courage to attack our convictions.”

 

The basis of all superstition is that people believe things that are false and for which people have no good evidence.  Some people say believing something without evidence is acceptable provided we don’t act on it.  Clifford denies this. People often say that they live most of their lives based on rational evidence and if they choose from time to time to base their beliefs and their actions on horoscopes, or hunches, or perceived answers from God to our prayers, or perceived dictates from ancient sacred texts that is no one else’s business. We should be free to do that. Clifford disagrees.

 

Clifford says that if we believe a statement without evidence because we want to believe that, we are conditioning the mind to do that again. It will then tend to believe another statement without evidence just because we also want to believe it is true. This is really a kind of slippery slope argument. Credulity leads to ever more credulity. It is not possible to sequester such beliefs in order to avoid contamination. Contamination will follow inevitably from our acceptance of beliefs without evidence in one case. Our mind is so trained to think that this is acceptable.

 

Schafer gave an interesting example from his experience as an ethics consultant with hospitals.  If you accept beliefs, such as religious beliefs, without evidence, you are more likely to believe that they should let their children die rather than giving them a needed blood transfusion. One irrational belief leads to another and that other belief may be seriously harmful. In fact, this is what we might be experiencing now with  the explosion of anti-vax beliefs for which there is little or no evidence.

 

Another example that Schafer gave was the father of Turrel Dueck whose father was a fundamentalist Christian who believed that chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer was not appropriate. As a direct result of that irrational belief Turrel’s life was put in eminent danger. His father took him to Mexico for scientifically untested medicines that proved wholly useless. Irrational beliefs lead to more irrational beliefs. As a result of some irrational beliefs some have come to believe that homeopathy is a valid discipline, which Schafer said is total garbage.

Part of the problem is that people pass on their superstitions and their prejudices and irrational beliefs to their children. As a result, ordinary people in ordinary situations can infect others with their irrational beliefs. Irrational beliefs are never innocent. They often have seriously harmful consequences.

Schafer said “Clifford sees irrationality as a kind of infection.” The analogy Schafer employs is that of the person who knows she or he is infected with the aids virus having sex with an unprotected and unaware partner is committing a serious assault on that other person. So too with the person who relies on irrational beliefs. According to Schafer, “the penis or vagina in such circumstances can be a lethal weapon.”  The same is exactly true of irrational beliefs that are accepted without evidence. The people who knowingly engage in unprotected sex without telling their partners of the risk are engaged in spreading infection and ought to be punished. It might be that the criminal justice system is not the best forum for this but the principle remains and is equally applicable to those who adopt irrational beliefs.

“There is no such thing as an innocent religious belief, if religion is irrational,” says Schafer. If it’s not rational it shouldn’t be believed.

 

 

Credulity is Bad

Conspiracy Theories, Critical thinking, Epidemics/Pandemics, Morality, Philosophy/Ideas, reason, religion, Skeptical Philosophy, The Sleep of Reason, Trust and Distrust

 

 

The philosopher William Kingdon Clifford argued, that to believe anything because it comforts you, or makes you feel good, or sustains you in life, or makes life a little less intolerable, is not just epistemically wrong, not just intellectually wrong, but morally wrong. In fact, if the decision that needs to be made is serious enough, such as whether or not to send people to war, or whether or not to cut health benefits to millions of people to raise money to give tax breaks to wealthy people, or whether or not to encourage  vaccines to fight serious diseases or encourage eating wild flowers instead, the decision could amount to one of the worst crimes that you can commit. That’s a pretty drastic statement. According to Clifford  It is a travesty and has some horrible consequences.  We will get to those later. In any event, according to Clifford this is a morally wrong. I think it is hard to argue with that. Serious decisions must be made on the basis of serious evidence, analysis, and scrutiny before they are made and innocent people suffer.

 

Arthur Schafer, a wonderful philosopher and ethicist from the University of Manitoba, and the first philosopher I ever heard speak in person, is a fan of Clifford’s reasoning. According to Schafer, Clifford sees our reliance   on illusion on false pictures of the universe, as amounting to creating in us a walking time bomb. As Schafer said at talk to a talk given to the Winnipeg Humanists, Atheists, and Skeptics, Society,  “to put it a little less dramatically, when we believe things because they make us feel good, rather than because we have good evidence for them, as Clifford argues, we make ourselves credulous people.” That Clifford says is wicked. Schafer agrees with that conclusion. So do I.

 

Again, we are talking only about serious important issues here. We are not talking about a decision to pick a red jelly bean rather than a white jelly bean from a cup. For those decisions we are completely free to make them on the basis of a whim, or an inkling, or an instinct or even on a guess.  But we can’t justify decisions that seriously affect the health or welfare of other people on such a basis.

 

If we are credulous people we can easily believe, as the Mennonite woman interviewed by the CBC radio did, that eating wild flowers to combat measles is better than taking vaccines. If we have been conditioned by our parents to be credulous, they are partly responsible. Credulity can be dangerous—to ourselves and others. That is why Clifford and Schafer said encouraging credulity is dangerous for society. Not just for the believer, for society.

We can believe whatever we want but we should be careful about helping to create a credulous society. As we are now seeing everywhere, that can cause a lot of harm.

The Ethics of Belief

Epidemics/Pandemics, Ethics, Health, Pluralism, Skeptical Philosophy, The Sleep of Reason, Vaccines

 

One thing I have learned from the Covid-19 pandemic and the measles vaccine fiasco, particularly among Mennonites, is that it is important—vital in fact—that important beliefs are grounded in rational thinking, evidence, and facts.  Wishes are not helpful. Neither, in my view is faith. I know this will be controversial. So be it. More on this later.

 

There was an interesting philosopher in the 19th century in England by the name of William Kingdon Clifford. He is no longer very well-known but he had some good ideas. Some were very controversial. Radical even.  Here is one of those ideas: “ It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” He wrote that in his book The Ethics of Belief which was published in in 1877 or in 1879 depending on whom you believe.

 

Here is another f comment from the same book equally as radical:

 “If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call in question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it—the life of that man is one long sin against mankind.”

 

Clifford took beliefs seriously. And I have to agree with him. In simplified terms he believed it was immoral to believe things for which one has insufficient evidence.

 

Here was an example of what he meant by this claim. Clifford told the unhappy tale of a shipowner who was planning to send to sea a shipload of people on a rickety old boat.  The ship-owner had doubts about the seaworthiness of his ship but nonetheless sent ship out to sea anyway heavily loaded with people.  He believed the ship was seaworthy but he really had no good reasons for that belief. In the case of something as important as sending a ship-load of people to sea he ought to have been more careful. He should not have assumed without good evidence that the ship was alright.  Clifford argued, persuasively, to my mind, that the ship owner was guilty of negligence  for the deaths (not murder which requires intent to murder) even though he sincerely believed the ship was sound. According to Clifford “[H]e had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him,” that it was safe to send those people on that ship. His decision was morally wrong. Serious issues require serious deliberation. Clifford said the owner ought  to have checked the boat thoroughly.  He should have examined it carefully, got expert advice if needed, weighed all the evidence with scrutiny and care before sending the vessel out to sea.

 

Clifford would have been appalled by Donald Trump. Why? Because Trump always invariably say he makes his decisions on the basis of instincts. Not evidence! Instincts. I have heard him say that many timers. Instincts are not evidence. Instincts are not reasons. Important decisions, such as decisions about sending a boat load of people to sea must be based on evidence, not instincts or hunches. Important decisions a  president can make such as whether or not he should send bombers around the world to bomb his enemies, or deciding whether captured illegal immigrants should be sent to El Salvador or whether government departments should be closed on account of waste, fraud, and abuse must all be dealt with on the basis of evidence—the best evidence available—and good solid logical reasoning. Not instincts.

 

What does this have to do with Mennonites and vaccines? Everything!

The End Times

Epidemics/Pandemics, Health, Mennonites, The Sleep of Reason, Trust and Distrust, Vaccines

 

I am still trying to figure out, in a circuitous manner, why Mennonites are at the centre of the Measles epidemic in the United States and Canada. To do that I am recalling the Truckers’ Convoy.

 In Ottawa during the trucker’s convoy, there were abundant Christian sermons and even “Jericho Marches” that circled the Parliament buildings echoing the story in the Bible where the Israelite circled that city for 7 days. On the 7th day they blew their horns and the walls came tumbling down.

In Ottawa a woman draped in a Canadian flag led the march and said, “When we sing, enemies flee,” she said as she entered the grounds of Parliament Hill. Hallelujah, hallelujah.”  The woman was Bonita Pederson from Alberta and she claimed with fervor, “I surrendered to our Lord.” She also said she would not reveal her vaccination status just like Steinbach’s Member of Parliament, Ted Falk.  But Pederson went farther than Falk. She said,” I will give everything I have to the freedom movement. My time, my energy, my money, my resources. If necessary, I will surrender my own freedom and even my life.’ Because that is what it could come to.” In other words, she was filled with religious fervour.

Laurence Leriger, 46, from Niagara, Ont., who was unvaccinated, had until March to get the Covid shots or face losing his job. He wouldn’t get employment insurance either because his departure would be categorized as voluntary leave. He refused the vaccine and was very upset that the government had “crossed the line” by closing churches” to prevent transmission of the coronavirus even though they only closed in person worship services.  He told the CBC in Ottawa:

“I think it’s absolutely appalling… they are holding our livelihood over our heads if we don’t take part in a medical experiment,” said Leriger, standing by the Centennial Flame monument., The very nature of the church is to get together, and the government was trying to rule the church. The government left their sphere of authority…This is wickedness. This is complete rebellion against God.”

 

 

Leriger, who became a Christian at age 30, said his personal trials were only part of what motivated his weekend trips to Ottawa in support of the Freedom Convoy. He felt governments crossed a line by shuttering churches during lockdowns.

 

George Dyck, the good Mennonite from Aylmer Ontario who was interviewed by  CBC radio  demonstrated  what I have been saying, that in large part this movement was being driven by a loss of trust in government and authority. As he said, “I am not sure who you can trust anymore. I lost faith in pretty much everything”.

 George Dyck said during the truckers’ convoy event in Ottawa that he believed there were “shadow powers” behind Prime Minister Trudeau and other world leaders.  As a result, he said this was “just the beginning of a creeping tyranny that will tighten its grip…”We live in the Book of Revelation 100 per cent.”  Talk of pandemics of course energizes the extreme religious views because the book of Revelations is commonly believed among Evangelical Christian to prophecy edict the end times.

To George Dyck his duty was clear:

“If you look at what’s happening, how the government is working. It is step-by-step all in the Book of Revelation. It’s clear as day.”

With pressure mounting on Ottawa police to end the protest and politicians of all stripes condemning the disruptions, Dyck says he knows he’s put all his material possessions on the line for this cause — his career, his rig, his mortgage.

“I have children, they might have children. If we don’t sacrifice everything now, then what kind of future will they have?” he said, “What did Jesus do? He gave it all, he gave everything.”

 

These are things that happen when people expect the ‘end times” are near.  Things get kind of crazy.  Is that what is also happening with the measles pandemic. Is it all part of the end times?

 

Faith Fuels the Resistance

Epidemics/Pandemics, Evangelical Christianity, Health, Mennonites, The Sleep of Reason, Vaccines

 

I noticed that during the Truckers’ Convoy which haunted Ottawa for a few weeks in the winter of 2022, during the end of the pandemic many of the protesters were fueled by faith. Trucker George Dyck, interviewed on CBC radio, and likely a good Mennonite, was not concerned when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau threatened to invoke the Emergencies Act even though it could be used to freeze his bank account.

This is what he told Jorge Barrera of CBC News at the time:

“I take it one step at a time,” said Dyck. “In all honesty, God is my shield, and that is what I stand by.”

 Barrera said this in response: “Faith led him to Ottawa, and faith is what keeps him there.” In other words, echoing the words of Bob Dylan in another context, “You don’t count the dead with God on your side.”

In February of 2022 George Dyck, who lives about 600 kilometres southwest of Ottawa in Aylmer, Ontario, the centre of the largest outbreak of measles in North America, Ont., prayed with his wife before going to turn his 18 wheel rig toward Ottawa in order to join a national protest against mask mandates even though they were not imposed by the federal government.  As he told CBC News, “I had the feeling I had to be here,” said the 44-year-old trucker.

 

This strikes as being a religious response. Many of us don’t see how this could be a religious issue, but I think it is for people like George Dyck, and some other Mennonites, and other people too in and around the area of Aylmer. It also strikes me that this is the same as it is for the measles vaccine, which the same people in the same places seem to resist.

 

If it is a religious belief then of course it will be very difficult to dislodge. As John Loftus once said about religious beliefs, “it is impossible to reason someone out of a religious belief, because they did not get the belief by reason.” I am paraphrasing his comments here.

 

Barrera described this incident in Ottawa in 2022:

“Dyck has been parked there for over three weeks and, this past Saturday, his cargo trailer was a refuge from the windchill-edged temperatures of downtown Ottawa, with a handful of chairs toward the back and a propane heater emanating warmth.

 

The words “Freedom Is Essential” are emblazoned in large blue and yellow letters across the side of his charcoal-coloured trailer.

 

At one point, a man shook Dyck’s hand as he left the trailer, a folded $50 bill in his palm. This happens a lot — bills slipped in with a handshake, a smile and a thank you. Dyck often responds with, “God bless you.”

 

The truckers in Ottawa were part of a movement that felt a lot like a religion. As Barrera said,

 

“God keeps telling me to, ‘Stay where you are. Don’t go anywhere. You are doing the right thing,'” Dyck said.

 

Devoted to the cause.

 

Christian faith — with an overtly evangelical feel — flows likes an undercurrent through the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa. 

It’s unclear how many of the roughly 4,000 people who gathered in the Parliament precinct this past weekend call themselves Christians, but the biblical references were everywhere — in the hand-made placards lining the stone and iron fence at the border of Parliament Hill reading, “We are praying for Justin [Trudeau],” quoting parts of Psalm 23 or paraphrasing 1 Corinthians 1:27 in the New Testament:

“God chose the foolish to shame the wisdom of the wise.”

 

 

One thing is clear, the connection between the anti-vaccine movement  has now morphed into the anti-measles vaccine movement and is filled with evangelical exuberance which runs deep.