Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed. Read more»
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya et al., “Great Barrington Declaration.”
For the democrats, this virus has become a way and means to control. It hasn’t been about Covid-19 for a long time. And anyone with functioning gray matter should be able to see this…democrats love power and control more than God and country. IMO
You hit the nail on the head.
Scott: I do wish you’d stick to theology, esp in your Heidelblog. I’m not sure why you feel qualified to opine on secular issues, esp ones that are at the top of the list of political disputations. I fear such forays into these secular disputes only diminish your well-deserved credibility on issues of Protestant theology, imho.
Because I am an American and I live in two cities, the heavenly city and the earthly city simultaneously.
Are you implying that the scholars who published this letter are disreputable and beyond consideration?
Hah. Good point. I hadn’t thought about the implications of my comments for the reputations of the 11,000 “scholars,” but now that you mention it, maybe I am a bit wary of such a self-selected subset of the 100s of 1000s of scholars around the world. But, seriously, I’m more concerned w/the impact on your status as a first-class Protestant scholar. That is all. And, btw, I’m on your side (most of the time).
I don’t write partisan political posts. I do defend free speech, civil liberties, including religious liberty. I have always observed cultural trends here and especially as they intersect with the life of the church.
So far you’ve attempted to shame me into silence but you haven’t made an argument as to why this is improper.
I understand if those issues are not your cup of tea. Is someone forcing you to read them? If so, send a signal and I’ll call the authorities. Otherwise, carry on and ignore them.
Sadly, the more we communicate, the less we communicate?
I won’t again make the mistake of suggesting you made a mistake.
I certainly did not intend to “shame” you & regret you took it so.
Your increasingly annoyed replies are quite a surprise, as I expected the opposite.
Alas, I fear yet another of my heroes has tumbled from his pedestal.
I won’t presume upon your good graces again.
This seems like a passive-aggressive response.
You clearly think I should not be commenting on cultural trends/issues, that I should stick to my area of specialization. Fine.
You also clearly implied that I’m sacrificing my credibility as a scholar by doing what you think I shouldn’t do. That seems like shaming. You disagree. Ok.
I’m asking you to make an argument.
How does it sacrifice my credibility as a scholar to do what I’m doing? What exactly am I doing that you think to be a mistake? Explain please.
Ohhhhhh, I get it! It’s the old “separation of church and state” argument, dressed up in high-falutin’ language. I may very well be wrong about the motivation, but as Harold O.J. Brown said in another context, if Christians leave the public square, who remains to observe, analyze, assess, critique and, importantly, to make policy. This is a way of saying, I think, that you should stay in your prayer closet. I myself profit greatly from the clarity, even-handedness, restraint and biblical world view that frame your blogs. For example, I forwarded the two articles about definition of language (changing the definition in the Merriam Webster dictionary the very same day) and executive censorship of information, to family and friends in order to keep information in circulation.