Common Courtesy for the Common Cold

Posted On April 27, 2020

 

During this time of crisis and pandemic with Covid-19 and all the debate over what to do and what not to do, it has also come up about what the government can and cannot do. I know this has been a hot topic for many, with people divided strongly on either side.

However, I believe the answer is far simpler than people are making it. Of course we live in a constitutional republic (or we did and are meant to), meaning that the government doesn’t have a lot of power of the people, to force people to stay home. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the people to take into consideration, what is best for themselves, as well as for one another. The government does not exist to protect the people from themselves. In fact, it was meant to be a very small government, indeed, according to our founders.

Freedom means…

The fact is that freedom to make decisions means freedom to make bad decisions. Unfortunately, this can mean decisions that affect others negatively, as well as oneself. However, the “others” in question, have options as well. That is to say, a person can stay home, to try to protect themselves, while others can go out if they don’t feel the need to protect (regardless of their reasoning). This is a discouraged practice, however, although not an illegal one. Here’s why:

The government lacks the authority to tell people where they are allowed to be (for the most part, although they’ve claimed a lot more than they have any right to claim). We COULD live in a place where the government protects it’s people from themselves. If we are going to go so far as to have it telling us all where we can be, to protect us, why not tell us when to brush our teeth, in order to prevent tooth decay? Why not have them take over on forced exercise programs, to prevent obesity and heart disease? How about a curfew, to prevent people from committing crimes when it’s dark and they are harder to recognize? What about telling us what we can and cannot consume, to prevent health issues? Maybe we disallow internet in order to prevent bullying?

These are all wonderful causes! The trouble is three-fold:

1.  Were you to ask any therapist about what is termed “helicopter parenting”, they will tell you that it is a bad idea because it makes the child grow into a person that cannot care for himself. It stunts intelligence, ability, stamina, and prevents them from learning basic things like cause and effect relationships. Basically, it’s just bad for anyone to live this kind of life.
2.  When we become adults, we all are at a point of rejecting this kind of smothering from a parent. Were you to ask most any adult if he wanted to move back in with his mother/father, the answer would likely be a resounding, “No.” People value their freedom, even if it means we suffer for them.
3. While it is entirely possible, far as many people can tell, that the media and government have made this out to be more than it is/exaggerated the severity, or even made up this disease altogether,  is that a risk the people should take? After all, there isn’t any proof of this (aside from a great many bits of circumstantial evidence), and taking part to that freedom could cost actual lives.

This means, the extent of authority the government should be offering in this era, should be limited to strong recommendations. It’s not fair to each other, that we can infect one another due to personal choice, certainly, but frankly, life just isn’t fair. You can’t lock your neighbors up to feel protected, yourself. Freedom HAS to take priority!

Here’s the rub: 

That all aside, there is a second side to this, and that is “common courtesy”. It’s true, there are people out there struggling financially due to not being able to work due to closures, etc. The government shouldn’t be doing what it is doing, and we should try to correct this behavior, or face country-wide financial ruin.

However, if we take into our hands, the personal responsibility, there is a requirement of caring for all the people with whom we may come into contact. This concept is not new. This isn’t about staying home, just because we don’t know if we/other people are sick. This is a matter of stay home if you are sick or have been exposed to someone that is sick. I’ve heard people arguing about the need for money, and how they will go to work if they are sick, to prevent their own financial ruin. I truly do understand.

Put others above yourself

However, I’m also a Christian, with strong beliefs in attempting to treat people the way you would like to be treated. This goes double for situations that may be so serious as to cause severe health issues to arise. A person that is sick, or has been exposed, he has an obligation to stay home. This may not be a legal obligation, but it is a moral one. You don’t have a right to go infect others because you are worried about your finances. That is akin to making your financial obligations someone else’s problem, by risking their lives to protect yours.

To put this into context, the Bible says:

1. 25 “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And which of you by being  anxious can add a single hour to his span of life 7 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious,  saying, ‘What  shall  we  eat?’  or  ‘What  shall  we  drink?’  or  ‘What shall we wear?’  32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. 34 “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow,  for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.” Mathew 6:25-34
2. “And with all his abundant wealth through Christ Jesus, my God will supply all your needs.-Philippians 4:19 (GNTD)“
3. “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”- Mathew 6:24

Obviously…

It is clear, in God’s word, that He will care for our needs. I’ve experienced this first hand, when things have gotten very tight for my family and I. We have had to go to the food bank, ask friends and family for help, nearly lost our home, had to sell things, work odd jobs, etc. More importantly, though, is that almost always, something specific and unexpected has come up in our times of crisis. My family has gotten unexpected bonuses, had stock or investments that suddenly paid out, found a solution/parts to a problem (like a broken down vehicle we couldn’t pay to fix), that is unusually cheap, etc. God has provided. Therefore, we live our life accordingly. We have an obligation to stay home when sick, despite facing financial ruin. God will provide the rest.

Here’s an example:

We recently faced losing our home. We stayed home anyway, because of this pandemic, that may or may not exist, and may or may not be as bad as we have been told. God provided us with financial solutions, and we have stayed afloat. We wear masks when we leave the house because the risk is too high, whether it’s real or not.

One might say we operate out of fear. The truth is we operate out of respect for others. We still don’t accept the government stepping in to enforce any of this. Citizens do not agree that all the businesses should close, or that parks should be closed, or that anyone should be facing fines for going to “drive-in church”. We don’t even agree that people should stay home even if they aren’t sick, “just in case they have it but are asymptomatic”. But why should we ignore the basics of common courtesy when it is possible that the virus is real? Should someone sick/exposed, really be going out to the grocery store, where the elderly also shop, and spreading their germs on items and in the air, of people that are higher risk? The question isn’t about “rights”. It’s about principle.

So I ask you, is fighting for your RIGHTS, more or less important than PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? Because frankly, if you don’t have personal responsibility, you don’t deserve those rights.