1. Sickness And Crime
A dreadful consequence of mandatory vaccines and a vaccine passport is that it makes "sickness" and "crime" the same, which means it makes "punishment" and "cure" the same. Those who are “sick” [unvaccinated] will be called “criminals,” and their “punishment” will simply be a component of their eventual “cure” [vaccination].*
For if the unvaccinated are called criminals, they can be treated like criminals and their rights can be methodically eliminated one by one. As each day passes, it becomes more apparent that the unvaccinated will not be able to fly, attend hockey games, or get groceries, unless they capitulate and get vaccinated. Soon, this discrimination will apply to banks, market transactions, healthcare, and other essentials.
The terror of making punishment and cure the same is that punishments are mandatory and must be endured as determined by a superior. The convict cannot determine his own sentence. The thief must toil in prison, and the murderer, at least in some countries, must face the chair.
In the same way, now the sick are to be healed by a mandatory cure. This may take the form of being kidnapped and strapped to a chair to be vaccinated, rounding up children from homes to vaccinate them (like Australia), or denying families the ability to shop (like France).
But do not call these extraordinary measures “punishment” for that archaic term is not employed by the expert who orders the passport. The unvaccinated are not being “punished” but “healed,” whatever fearful form that may take.
“Oh, don’t be ridiculous. You’re a fear-monger, and no connection between cures and punishments can be made.”
C.S. Lewis received the same flak. Here was his response:
“Of course, they will say this is only for our health. But let’s not get mixed up with terms. To be taken without consent from my home and friends; to lose my liberty; to undergo all those assaults on my personality which modern psychotherapy knows how to deliver; to be re-made after some pattern of “normality” hatched in a Viennese laboratory to which I never professed allegiance; to know that this process will never end until either my captors have succeeded or I grown wise enough to cheat them with apparent success—who cares whether this is called Punishment or not? That it includes most of the elements for which any punishment is feared—shame, exile, bondage, and years eaten by the locust—is obvious.” Only some wicked crime could justify it, but the scientists do not call this a crime.”
2. The Rejection Of Law
I disagree with vaccine passports because they have nothing to do with law, and therefore, government has no business mandating them. In an ideal structure of governance, the people elect a representative, the representative appeals to a standard constitution, and then the congress or parliament passes bills democratically that reflect the standard. That way, if a law is passed that doesn’t reflect the constitution, we the people have a legal and moral obligation and right to demand its dissolution.
But the vaccine passport is justified, not by law, but by “science,” and as such, is not concerned with justice. It’s entirely illogical to talk about a “just” or “unjust” vaccine; it doesn’t exist. Our leaders demand we take it, not because it’s moral, but because it saves us (so they say) from Covid.
Policymakers tactically insulate themselves from criticism and debate about a vaccine mandate's legality and moral implication by appealing, not to the constitution, but to “experts” like Fauci and Tam…Bureaucrats disguised as scientists, and scientists disguised as bureaucrats.
Thus, in an instant, the moral blockade questioning whether a parent or child deserves to be forcefully injected with a vaccine vanishes, because the concept of “just deserts” is no longer applicable. According to our leaders, we don’t deserve to be forcefully vaccinated; we need to be.
Now, the only questions asked are, “Does it save? Does it cure?” As such, our humanity (and the treatment from others we subsequently deserve) is removed from the equation. That's why I never hear about “people” on the news anymore, only “cases, potential cases, and patients.”
And have you noticed that it’s not so much the “locking people in their homes” that the “vaccine hunter” cares about as it is releasing those people back into society? Their brutish and uncivilized argument is that the unvaccinated lockdown, learn nothing, and when the lockdown is over, go right back to living as they were before (the horror!). As such, they lobby that the unvaccinated should endure punishment (disguised as part of the cure), like isolation and near ostracism, until they are fully cured by the vaccine.
That might seem innocent enough, but it’s not. It’s sinister. It doesn’t even really matter what the intentions of the hunter are. In his control is an unimaginably painful and cruel method of modern tyranny, capable of reducing a man to nothing more than an experiment.
According to the government’s word, they’re introducing vaccine passports because it ensures safety. That is, they’re obeying the “expert’s” advice and command. The rest of us who are unvaccinated will be subject to the recommended punishments—lockdowns, being denied entry into stores, airplanes, etc.—until we accept the vaccine’s cure. That is, we are at the mercy of experts working through the government. And whether a small oligarchy of them control the government or the government uses them as a scapegoat, it doesn’t really matter. The point remains, whether a smokescreen or real, “experts” are in charge.
3. Indefinite Punishment
So what happens when experts invariably say the “standard of safety has changed” and one vaccine isn’t enough? Because the unelected expert rules, we have traded definite sentences (a two-week lockdown in our home) for indefinite ones (an indefinite and unpredictable lockdown), terminable only when the Covid expert says “stop.”
But what happens when an expert in religion or psychology calls Christianity insane? What happens when a linguistics professor calls free speech dangerous? What happens when a biologist calls a handicapped fetus “an unnecessary tax on the mother, father, and society?”
What punishments shall the Christian, the disabled, and the bold—all of them equally human—be forced to endure as part of their “cure?” The term is “torture.” They will have to endure torture to be “cured.” But remember, such disagreeable words like “torture” no longer have meaning because it implies unjust law and evil morals which do not exist in medicine. Instead, because cures are about healing, they will not be called “torture” but “treatment.”
Thus, vaccine passports are detestable because they take a man and treat him as an animal, a number, a “patient” that pleads to be cured when in fact he never asked for any such thing at all. But what are the leaders' aims with this cure? To lead society to some fearful “utopia,” drafted in Hell by the spirit of AntiChrist, ushered in by a “compassion” I want to refuse.
One more thing. This article will no doubt be slandered as being "fanatical." Some might scoff and say that "Nothing like the dystopia you describe could ever come to our country or culture."
But based on our recent apathy in Afghanistan, our government's silence as France and Australia persecute their people, and our leaders' disregard for law that we all have endured, I wouldn't be so confident.
*This entire article is an adaptation of C.S. Lewis' "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment" available here. All quotes and ideas used in this article are cited from Lewis' original work.
Thank you for reading! If you’d like to stay informed about the Christian's perspective of current events, or if you’d like to join our growing community of members who love truth, subscribe here for free!
If you'd like to support our site and the work we do, click here! Thank you so much for your kind generosity!