Is compassion only for like minded people? Are the minorities in society worth consideration? Are the very people that typically fight politically and spiritually for diversity, forgetting the minorities and diversity of others in their current positions in society? When we regard those as different from us, as the "bad," the "wrong," the "ones who deserve to die," or with statements like; "They should not be given healthcare" or "They should be left behind- they are taking up our hospital beds"... Are we considering context? Are we actually considering the vulnerable? Could the vulnerable also be included in some of the people who can not or will not take the vaccines?
Apparently our global population is 7,929, 833, 700 as of my writing. It has been said by health organizations that only 3 percent of people have adverse reactions or die from the shot. According to my calculator that is 237,895,011 people of the world. Do those millions not get a voice? Is it not reasonable to consider that their 3 percent chance of adverse affects (or even death) is higher than the one percent possibility of them dying from Covid 19 Virus? Is it a completely cut and dry issue? Is blame and shame loving your neighbour or even your enemy? I understand that it is certainly easier to love those on the same page as us. It's easier to love those like us right? Because we are in the right obviously. Right?? Love is mercy, it does not judge, it does not boast and it submits in service to other people's choice. No one said it would be easy.
In the case of vaccines and each person’s personal choice- I am truly Switzerland. People dislike that. I have been accused of being Anti- Vaccination. I have also been accused of being Pro Vaccine. Both have been said in testy tones of judgement. Let me be clear- I am FOR individual choice and context. I believe in CHOICE. Bodily autonomy matters. We have choices when it comes to having children or not, life changing surgeries, and any other important decision- so why is the exception being made in the one case of vaccinations? Why is diversity suddenly a non issue? Did it disappear? Are we suddenly all the same in reactions, genetics (check into the MTHFR gene for example), socio economic status and vulnerabilities? So the previous conversations of "privilege" in our society no longer apply to vaccinations? Are there people who are more able to take time off of work for any perceived side effects, or stay at home when needed, or can find other jobs if they can not take the vaccine, in perhaps a place of "privilege"? There is so much more to this picture than "conspiracy."
I believe my vaccine status is private. I feel that vaccines can be an incredible gift. I believe that there are different populations whom are affected by this choice more than others. For instance, Aboriginal people are more likely to experience adverse side effects. My uncle, whom is Aboriginal, died from the vaccine but it went un reported. Another family member had to be rushed to the hospital and it again, went unreported. I don't know why this is, but I do know that in emergency situations, reporting may not always be accurate. We need to assume that if a certain population is experiencing more side effects or death (like the Aboriginal leader on La Crete reserve) that they have a right to be wary. There are those who suffer auto immune conditions that the vaccine can protect but then there are those that are higher risk with the vaccine BECAUSE of their conditions.I celebrate that many people can take the vaccine with no ill effects! Including, also, many other Aboriginal people. That is fabulous. With the over 71% vaccination rate in Canada, my country, people should be confident in the decision they have made and that it is working. Living in fear or blaming the unvaccinated for the current medical crisis is a gross negligence of the greater, complex picture. I have a friend whom has heart issues who feels like the vaccine could kill her and I have another friend with different heart issues who felt like the vaccine saved her life. Is one wrong and the other right? Can they both be RIGHT in their own contexts, listening to their own intuition and bodily needs and gut reactions?
I can state what I do not believe in, nor ever have. I do not believe in force. Forcing someone to do something by mandate or by making their life increasingly difficult, so that a choice is no longer a choice is not ethical, to me personally. Throwing ethics around on each side and giving blanket statements is not my favourite approach either. I have had many conversations since the vaccine came into mainstream health over the last few months. Many of my friends have Christian backgrounds, and many have stated to me what Jesus or God would do. I have been told he would NEVER take the vaccine and I have also been told he absolutely would. Both sides were strong in that conviction and had arguments to back themselves up. Could I offer a third option? Jesus was above the law in many regards while also respecting aspects of it. Often Jesus spoke about root issues instead of what people wanted him to speak on. He was controversial and threw over temple tables. He could be harsh and he was compassionate but it was always based on context. He looked at the individual. He held lepers. He reamed out hypocrites. I don't think we can say what he would do, in regards to taking the vaccine, because it was always the unexpected. But could it be possible that for different people, he would lay down his life and his choices for them differently depending on context? Could that be possible?
I also believe in self regulation and stepping back from hate to see context. Did you know that most of the people that are not taking vaccines are people of colour? Hispanics, Aboriginals, and Black people make up one of two groups. The other is Christians. Let's look at why that is below.
Recently, I had a vivid dream of Russell Brand. Which was weird, because I have only seen him in one movie and knew of him vaguely from the Katy Perry Documentary years ago. His accent and looks were accurate in my dream, despite not knowing these things about him before I looked him up, which was a large sign to me that I should pay attention to what my subconscious was trying to tell me. In my dream, we talked about vaccine mandates, he was clever and witty but seemed to be on the same page as me..which again felt really odd upon waking... Thus I googled him with that in mind and found this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfxnKgCN3OY
32- 2:20 : "Shaming is always a good technique to get people to do things. If we have learned one thing from protests and demonstrations from the last few years- it's the power of shame to get people to do what you want." (Yahoo news- Earlier this month, Lemon called out unvaccinated people for "taking up the space" in the hospitals from vaccinated people who are "playing by the rules." -End of Yahoo news bit) "That's an interesting bit of authoritarianism if you ask me. It is kind of devoid of compassion and is a very reductive type of argument, because we have not yet looked at what kind of people are not vaccinated and what their reasons might be for not being vaccinated. It doesn't seem to me that it should be simplistically assessed in that manner. That's why when I am always talking about it, I am keen to point out that I myself don't have a strong opinion on what your personal, private medical procedures might be. I am interested in a global perspective of a significant issue and how government, big pharma, and media all interact to create stories that then become truths, that lead to edicts such as this with public figures such as Don Lemon, fist on table, 'leave them behind, shun em, vaccine apartheid.' That kind of language has it's own kind of quality and it should never be applied saying 'this group of people' or 'It's a choice. It's a choice' but let me tell you there are other issues around choice, that people used to play out in different spheres of the political space. In bodily autonomy and choice. Segregation and inequality. It is very peculiar the way those rules are being discarded in order to facilitate the advantage of this narrative."
The video goes on to to discuss a New York Times article that speaks upon two types of Americans whom are not getting the vaccine. The first: A mix of people but many are "white, rural, evangelical Christian and politically conservative." Russell Brand remarks at 2:40; "I suppose that comes from the perspective of liberty and libertarianism and if you are saying Christian and rural...they are defining themselves as Christian and their primary authority is a religious rather than government authority that they take their moral and ethical guidance from a spiritual or at least dogmatic (depending on your view of Christianity) rather than what the government wants."
The New York times goes on to discuss the other group are open to the vaccine, but waiting to make their decisions. It states "They are a broad range of people, but tend to be a more diverse and urban group, including many younger people, Black and Latino Americans and Democrats." I personally would like to add, being from Canada and having Aboriginals in my ancestry (as well as Hispanic) that Aboriginals should also be included in this. I know many who have taken the vaccine and have been fine, but many whom are hesitant or whom have greatly suffered. I would also like to include the Autism community, of which I am a part of. Many who have the MTHFR gene. Since this vaccine has a genetic component, would it not be safe to assume that some genetics may not react or have body immersion the same as other genetic environments? Two years is not enough time to study that. Yes, many Autistic people I know believe in the vaccine. Some have been able to get it and others have not. Some have suffered or even died, while others have been perfectly fine...but is it ok for us to take that choice, with such diversity, and enforce it? Or to call these vulnerable people in society "uneducated" or lump them in with "murderers" or "those who cause chaos/death"? Are these statements compassion if we believe compassion is a virtue that has to extend to all, even those whom we disagree with or take different life paths? Are we actually seeing the individuals themselves? Are we even giving people the benefit of the doubt? Or are we assuming context?
3:59 (Stats from the New York Times were screened before); "That in a sense, presents a broad range of views and I would say they are not ridiculous reasons. There is not a percentage of people that are like 'they are going to put a robot in your blood.' It is not like that is it? These are reasonable questions and inquiries, particularly in the climate and context that we are currently in. Most people are feeling a level of distrust...whether or not you believe they are safe, or whether or not they are safe."
An article is shown onscreen from the Kaiser Family Foundation that states; "Many concerns about Covid-19 vaccinations are expressed at higher rates by people of colour compared to White adults." If we are anti racist- which I hope all whom are reading this ARE, than is this not an important fact to consider? If we are for diversity, are we considering the diverse issues surrounding this? The article goes on to talk about missing work from adverse affects (which many diverse economic groups can not afford) or getting to vaccine sites or payments (which does not apply to Canada), or needing types of documentation or providing social security numbers, wait and see groups, or free childcare for being vaccinated or recovering from it...it's layered and complex.
5:34: "If your life is about survival...coping with the challenges of every day life, a situation I lived in for awhile and it seems like a long while ago now, but you are not thinking so much about like 'oh no...climate change...I'm ... starving...it doesn't seem so relevant."
6:33: "So when you are talking about Don Lemon who says 'Ban em from beds!" You are talking about poor people, you are talking about people who are dealing with economic realities that someone in my position or Don Lemon's position do not have to concern themselves with...and if you are on the center of left you would not be dismissive about that category of people but in this context suddenly it becomes permissible?...It makes me question the true values of people in that political class. If they can be dismissive of people and groups that they elsewhere claim to be supportive of. Cuz when you put it in those terms you could say that Don Lemon is saying ' It's time to shun Black, Hispanic, Poor, Young people' Now he would never say that but you are saying that! That is what is being said. That is the danger of reductive, simplistic, propaganda driven news reporting."
8:05 - 10:08: Russel Brand: "The reductiveness of Don Lemon's argument and other people advancing a sort of apartheid type rhetoric around the vaccine is not including the complexity of the issue. This shows you that there is no room for bombast in this argument, no room for hyperbole, condemnation "no we should leave them behind!" or "I'm not doing this!" Wherever you stand on the vaccine issue, you are a human being like me, one day you are going to die, and I'm gonna die. Let's be kind to one another, and rational, and understanding, because otherwise what you are doing is venting anger from elsewhere in your character. It's like 'I don't like life, I don't like people to do that. Grrr.' Become aware of that. Otherwise the vaccine issue will be resolved by either a vaccine will come around that people feel really confident in, or a government might come around that people really really trust...and that other stuff won't go away, because its unresolved. It's unresolved anger. Unresolved hysteria. For me, these statistics make plain that it is impossible to make Don Lemon style condemnations of people. Because imagine if you had childcare considerations, health concerns, were worried about the impact of the vaccine and your inability to deal with the side effects and cope with children...How can you be dismissive and so lacking in compassion when there is evident complexity around many people's lives when it comes to an issue as significant as this one. You can't afford to just wipe people away and shun people when you don't understand the circumstances in their lives. This shaming, the futility of bipolar, combative social discourse...Instead we should be compassionate, inclusive, considerate. "
A clip is shown of Don Lemon saying we should shame and leave behind those whom are not listening to the science etc. I find that Russell's response is exactly what I would say at 10:25- 11:15; "I would say there is a certain line that you can not cross. Particularly if your whole political party is about inclusivity, diversity, compassion..you can not say with this issue- this is the one issue. May I say that if you look at the science it seems that there is room for conversation in many of the areas that these statistics suggest are cause for concern....These are not things that you can just go "NO!" and swipe with a broad sword across a population of people...it seems that people who have been disadvantaged elsewhere that are worthy of compassion and certainly worthy of being heard." You, regardless of which side you are on, are worthy of being HEARD. You are worthy because you exist. Plain and simple.
Recently I had a response to an email I sent out about unity and vitamin regimes which the respondent stated; “I strongly believe that people who aren't vaccinated are causing significant damage to our health system and are affecting other people's lives by their decision so I really don't want to hear about people who have made that kind of decision." My response back was, "Vaccines ARE a GIFT for those who can take them and I’m thankful for that ability. But for the minorities in genetics and reactions - it’s important to consider them :) We all affect the healthcare system in our choices for sure, but blaming each other probably doesn’t help our stress levels ♥️That said - I do agree that we all have responsibilities in our approach to life and health. I know many on both sides whom have chosen rightfully for themselves and respect that. I’m glad you found the choice that works for you and respect that you strongly believe in it." Then there was no response. Nothing. It was the end of the conversation. If this happens in that case, I can't even imagine how isolated and unvoiced many of the minorities, who have good reasons for doing what they do, are feeling right now. So we are writing off entire people groups, not listening to them, and not allowing their stories because we believe that we are the only ones who could be in the right? The definition of self righteousness is this; "Exhibiting smug or unwarranted confidence in one's own righteousness." Have we all been guilty of this, during this time? I know I have certainly had to combat it in myself. I have really had to ask myself, "Where am I not listening? Am I being cruel or condemning? Did I make an all or nothing statement? Am I letting anxiety and fear rule me? Am I wrong?" And yes, there is a possibility that I may be wrong in whatever choice I choose. Sometimes I sit in silence and wrestle with all the factors, which tends to bring me into existential crisis and depression, until I voice what I am struggling with, write a blog post (lucky you!) and move onward. I keep Gandalf's words constantly in my mind, "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement...“So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
Don Lemon clip and then Russell Brands response...then... 11:38; "If I am appealing to anything in you, if there is an area where I am happy to express directly what I mean, is do not be so quick to condemn other people when you do not understand what their perspective is. That is a basic spiritual and Christian value. Be open to other peoples' perspective. Do not assume you know exactly what it is like to be them and approach people with an open heart and recognize with a value such as compassion and kindness you can not pick and choose where it is applied. You have to apply it everywhere. All the good books suggest that that is the approach. And the more something irks, angers, and irritates you, the more you have to look inside yourself. I believe our values should be about how we conduct ourselves, NOT what we tell others to do."
YES! Resounding YES! I have been baffled that because I speak on unity, people have assumed I am pro or anti vax. No. I am simply considering context. Let me tell you, it's not easy when I am shunned, given no responses to correspondence when I have taken a step back, been kind and loving in tone, even when at first I feel attacked, or include social niceties...and my elders, people whom I look up to, people in my extended family, decide to shun me because I am asking to consider with compassion. That is hard for me, but you know what?I know these are trying times and it is tough to deal with so much right now. And it IS sad and heartbreaking and that can induce anger at all sort of things. Anger is ok to feel sometimes. Directing it or dealing out death and judgement, or who should live and who should die or be blamed - is not for us to do. All we can do is decide what to do with the time WE have…and we are all usually surrounded with only like minded people which makes it more divisive. There is so much more to the picture.I have to remind myself that all I can do is love them, challenge if it is in a context of love, and lead my life by living it. Just like in faith, we can not force those opposing us into it. Choice was given in the proverbial garden/ ancient origin story, for better or worse, and I think it is an important story. I do not think that means giving permission to do horrid things, but unfortunately sometimes people will choose that…but my hope is that MOST people ARE choosing what is best for them, and being careful in the meantime…and some of the greater picture involves other factors.
I support both the vaccinated and unvaccinated because I believe we all have individual context and MUST do what is in our spirits. I believe I protect the vulnerable and children by staying home when sick, trying to keep up my immunity and washing etc. I do not think it is so cut and dry. If we applied that mentality to everything then the minorities of this world would still be having to live in secret…and we are pushing them to live in secret in vaccination status, at a time when we generally know there is diversity? We know bodies and spirits are different, yet not in this one case of the vaccine? Blaming the unvaccinated for all of this, is not looking at the minute details that make up the whole.
12:00: "They! They! They! The more you have 'they' on your lips the more you are on your way to creating serious problems."
I have had conversations with both people who believe in the vaccines and people whom do not...and if the conversation starts dissolving into "us" and "them" which it tends to do on either side...I say, "Wait a minute...we are all in this together. As soon as we talk about people like that, we start dividing, and making perceived enemies." My friends get some of these blog posts and they know this is true. It is quite hard to see ourselves with those we think are against us. But if we can not do that, then where is the hope for respect, unity and compassion? I am not saying it is easy or that we do not need a moment to gather self control...but I am saying, if we concentrate on the ROOT issues, and only take responsibility for ourselves, there will be less hate in the world.
The rest of the video goes on to talk about hypocrisy, and the madness and division of the media, the red lies from CNN and yet we are listening to them? I highly recommend listening to the video above. 14:33 Russell Brand: "Don Lemon has a pretty nice face, he could be a good guy, maybe, I don't know, but I don't agree pretty strongly with what he is saying when it comes to shaming, leaving behind, and not considering complex arguments, being dismissive, not acknowledging the roll of media and creating current suspicion and heightened awareness and all that exists around these issues. And I don't mean right wing or left wing media. I mean the entire integration of government, big business and big pharma. How can that not generate mistrust when you see people revolving doors...(Video goes back to Don Lemon and Russells response for awhile.) Then; "You can't just say science only brings about good things like it's a lovely, friendly old grandad Science issuing stuff. There has been all sorts of complications, the opioid crisis...science but that is too reductive...that is science as a religion but science is just a bunch of research and investigation that can have major outcomes and one of the many human endeavours that is beautiful and brilliant but if you corral that beneath a corrupted system than the outcomes can be corrupted. You can not use such reductive, simplistic arguments when doing something as dismissing a whole class of people- a significant number of people and saying those people are unworthy of compassion. Once contempt enters into an argument, incredible things become possible, elsewhere on the internet they say we are on the outskirts of civil war or new forms of fascism on the rise, well they may not come from where you think they are going to come from. Particularly when you hear discourse of this kind under the guise of liberalism."
17:13 in response to Don Lemon mocking unvaccinated people and horse de wormers: "Making the choice to call Ivermectin a horse dewormer is a propagandist choice, that is a linguistic choice, I've got no opinion on what you should do with your health, but that is an interesting choice and a further decision that makes you believe that perhaps they have an agenda, perhaps they are pushing an agenda and that they are not objectively conveying news. Mainstream media is in serious trouble because it has become entertainment and become propaganda, this is bigger than Don Lemon, whom I am sure as a human being is a lovely guy, but with regard to this particular issue, he is advancing arguments that lead to division that are reductive, that are condemning people, that if you had to look into their eyes you wouldn't be as comfortable condemning. If you had to experience the challenges they are facing with childcare, or go through the reasons they are doubtful about the government I don't think it would be so easy to condemn them. This is a call for compassion, open mindedness and a understanding of nuance. Not to be reductive about such complex issues but the mainstream media has to do this, thankfully we don't have to do that. We can be open minded..and we will still make mistakes. But we will make mistakes without any obvious intention or agenda...to try to understand the complexity of our world and the many stories that are vying for control of your consciousness."
I have two types of readers (I think...I was only informed of one category recently.) First my Secular/Pagan/ Liberal Identifying or Open minded (mostly) sisters (and brothers? I dunno.)
To you dear readers I say;
The rule is to harm none. I know you apply that to vaccines sometimes, but what if it is harming some? The rule is to allow others to decide their own paths. It is not about conversion or about trying to get others on your same path. It is not about stating that vaccines are the only ethical choice, and thereby making those who cannot or will not, feel morally less. What I know you are generally about, because I learned from the beautiful interactions and experiences I have had in your community and friendships in the past, is compassion, awareness, working behind the scenes in positive and hope filled ways and giving the individual autonomy. It is about spiritual mysticism. Mysticism does not have all the answers for other people. That is the beauty of it. You were the controversial healers in the past. You went around patriarchal medicine and gave herbal remedies. Healing women died to help others. Because people like you were different, shunned and thought of as evil, and often victims of misplaced religious zeal, you found ways around majority systems. While you did ground some of your practices in science, you also went against it too for the sake of others. You found remedies that were not always peer reviewed but worked and you used them. Sometimes you made mistakes too and the history certainly isn't perfect, but you know what it is like to be misunderstood, associated with the devil and condemned. Can you not apply that to those who may be different from you? Can you not rise above what our ancestors dealt with? I urge you to stop talking about your positions and start listening for context. I ask you to focus on letting others BE while taking ownership of your own paths. That is the way...
To my Christian sisters (and brothers?) ...I knew a few friends whom are Christian read my posts, but I did not know that others did too (which I recently found out at a Sunday Soccer game.) Especially Conservative Christians...I thought I was too controversial at times? This year alone I was unsubscribed for two conflicting reasons. One said, "With your John O Donnohue posts and mysticism you are too liberal." The other said, "You are too conservative Christian in leaning." I guess we see what we wish to see or from our own contexts?...
Anyway, to the Christians, dear readers, I say;
Is it your job to be God? Do you actually believe God is bigger than all these issues? Is Jesus the way, the truth and the life? Was he unconventional and unexpected, and do you honestly think he would always side with you or say what YOU wish he would say? Perhaps you would be better served to live his example instead? Consider many of his words in the gospels. Were they easy to swallow? Were they often contextual? Did he often concentrate on the people who were directly in front of himself, in their contexts and in their individuality? The blind man was treated differently from the adulteress and the leper. In healings, there were times when He told one to be quiet, and another to spread the word. Why? Why was he so seemingly different? Could it be because he saw each situation DIFFERENTLY? They were different timelines in ministry? That he honoured diversity? One day we will all die. Is this issue worth tearing your families and friends apart over? Is there so much more? Can you overcome with compassion, to get to the root issues? Do you honestly want to repeat some of the travesties Christians have made in the past? Yes, Christians were often the ones fighting for the oppressed and some of the first to end slavery, speak up for women, and heal the world. But in other groups, Christianity and misplaced, zealous, individuals lent the Christian name to crusades, harmful patriarchy, witch hunts, and other atrocities because they thought it was what they were "called" to do. Recently we have been studying WW2, and I think that shows the differences in living out Christian faith and just laying CLAIM to it. Many of the Nazis called themselves Christians and laid claim to it. Hitler took over the Christian churches and had them giving his agenda but he actually loathed Christianity. In that case, Christianity was used in name and language and not in deed. Some well intentioned people started believing in it too. But the ill intent was there. HOWEVER, there were many Christians who went to their deaths refusing to get behind the agenda, who smuggled the oppressed and then became the oppressed, because they could not see the minorities being treated wrongly. At that point, they did not even know what was actually happening...they just knew that they had to honour the fact that they were answerable to a higher law than their current governance. Some were called to help in secret, some were called to just live their lives, some were called to fighting or subterfuge, some were called to listen and witness... WE all have DIFFERING roles, but as Christians, there is a call to LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR. NO that does not mean loving only those you believe are doing right. It means loving that perceived enemy. It means laying down your own life in submission to a greater cause. It means listening to the commandments and not judging personal health decisions. It is about honouring God and realizing that there are things beyond your comprehension, and that some contexts are called to a different way of BEING. If you believe in God, why are you not letting God be the judge? Why are you worrying about other people's choices in the first place? Why are you not living your life and doing the hard things because we were not called to an easy path? Don't be unkind or accusatory. In faith, if you are laying claim to that, maybe you should start with yourself and God and go from there?
And to myself, and people in all categories:
Can we leave our personal agendas and find context and compassion? Can we unify instead of divide and go after the root issues? The root issue is that there are MANY ways to live a good, ethical life. And there are other ways to protect people with, or without, the vaccine. We are all part of the human race. Leave contempt at the door. There is complexity here. Find compassion and activate it, even, and especially when, it is tough to do. The path of brambles can often be more rewarding. Let us not be reductive and blame or shame. Instead let us try to add encouragement, even if we are challenging something, let us use words in the end, that also convey love and that try to see, TRULY SEE, the other person.
We shall be Free- Garth Brooks ( warning the images in this video are triggering and hard at times. I also don’t endorse everyone in it or every saying about education as I think misplaced education has caused major issues. However, the lyrics of the song make me cry every time.)
In other news, How did I not know this? DARREN CRISS, My favourite Blaine of all time, came out with an EPIC Christmas Album. I am in love, love, love! I may have screeched with my daughter, jumping up and down whilst singing the happiest version of RIVER EVER! If you love Glee, or Blainey boy, or show tunes or Classic Bing Like Christmas, Christmas, Christmas! Check it out! A Very Darren Chrissmas. EEK. (Yea I realize that this is opposing sentiments of my post but we can have many layers to us right? Oh Joy- Oh bliss)
