With rights come responsibilities: how coronavirus is a pandemic of hypocrisy



Shutterstock

Luke Zaphir, The University of Queensland

It’s after work and you’ve gone to the supermarket to grab some ingredients for dinner. You’re tired, anxious and pretty hungry. Plus you have to put on a mask because a thousand other people are there, and social distancing is hard to enforce at this moment. Now you’re uncomfortable, on top of everything.

We all feel this way sometimes. But we tolerate it because there’s a pandemic and we all have to do our part to keep everyone safe.

Except that one person.

There’s that one person at the front of the line being asked to step out and put on a mask before coming into the shop. And they’re putting on a scene, yelling about their rights to go unmasked, to be able to breathe, to be free of oppression.

“Everyone else can wear a mask if they choose but not I,” says the person. “I have rights and I will be free.”

This is hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is when we are inconsistent in our morality. We commonly refer to it as “saying one thing and doing another”.

Anti-maskers believe they have rights. But in refusing to wear a mask, they are denying other people the right to live in security. Article 3 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights says “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. These rights are inextricably interwoven. Freedom without safety is arguably not freedom at all.

The primary way we become hypocrites, strangely enough, is being too flexible in our thinking — a cognitive flexibility called abstraction. Flexible thinking can be about keeping an open mind, but the capacity to warp one’s thinking processes can also make double standards acceptable.




Read more:
How to talk to someone who doesn’t wear a mask, and actually change their mind


We create loopholes in the application of the rules because we’ve created those rules much too theoretically, which doesn’t gel with real world settings.

Why is hypocrisy so bad?

When we are hypocritical, we create injustices. We may fail to do the right thing, which might hurt people or even make them sick. But the biggest problem with hypocrisy is that it causes a complete breakdown of our own personal truth.

If we believe in a principle, but don’t apply it ourselves, that principle is essentially meaningless.

Many dictatorships and fascists are fantastic hypocrites. They often say they are defending some theoretical value – like national security, cultural tradition or even freedom — but there’s no value or meaning in an abstract notion of security or freedom if you murder and oppress your people.

Man pulling a mask of his face off his head.
How can you trust someone who says one thing, but acts differently?
Shutterstock

Not all hypocrisy ends with bloodshed but we can have some pretty poor outcomes regardless. One of the more fundamental hypocrisies comes from ignoring the responsibility that comes with every right.

You want the right to live? Then you have a responsibility to the rights of others to live.

You want to own stuff? You have a responsibility to respect the property rights of others.

You want to use a public space? You have a responsibility to share that space with others.

To believe you have a right without a corresponding responsibility is hypocritical — a double standard where you’ve likely considered the abstract principle but not the specific situation.

Why is it bad, particularly now?

Hypocrisy erodes the value behind rights and truth, so they’re essentially worthless. Democracy is fundamentally about consent of the governed — we give our informed consent through voting and political participation. Informed consent requires accurate information though. Without being able to know the truth, we have no ability to give consent.




Read more:
Post-truth politics and why the antidote isn’t simply ‘fact-checking’ and truth


Our democracy erodes away with every hypocrisy and lie told to undermine expertise. It’s a well-known arguing tactic to discredit opposition to win a debate but we simply don’t have the luxury of this kind of sophistry during a pandemic.

We may not agree on what we need to do but right now we can’t afford to ignore evidence and truth.

Take public goods. These are shared spaces and qualities we all benefit from: education, clean air and water, health and the environment.

Letter tiles spelling 'truth' being covered up by sand.
Hypocrisy can erode truth.
Shutterstock

Without the public good of health, we get sick, the economy shuts down, we lose loved ones to disease. Our quality of life drops dramatically without good public health.

A hypocritical viewpoint says: “I’m willing to benefit from good public health but I’m not willing to maintain it”.

Hypocrites never would directly think or say this. Instead, they would see the issue as a fulfilment of a different abstract right. This might look like “I have a right to be unmasked in public”.




Read more:
How not to fall for coronavirus BS: avoid the 7 deadly sins of thought


This right may exist, or it may not. However, if you think public health is a good thing but you aren’t willing to take a basic measure of responsibility for it — like wearing a mask — that’s hypocrisy. It can make a disaster worse for everyone.

What can we do to check ourselves for hypocrisy?

One of the best ways to avoid hypocrisy is to make our own moral principles far more specific. Put that abstract principle into context.

Say your principle is

I have a right to live unmasked.

That’s not too contentious but it is vague enough to be abused.

Applying context to that principle could look like this:

I have a right to live unmasked even when I’m possibly an asymptomatic carrier of the worst disease to hit our country in a century.

It’s a lot harder to defend a belief like this one.

We don’t have to share common ethics from person to person, but we do have to be consistent with ourselves. If we’re charitable and authentic in how we interpret a situation, we gain the ability to construct much stronger, much more consistent moral beliefs.The Conversation

Luke Zaphir, Researcher for the University of Queensland Critical Thinking Project, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Chinese pastor, wife slain at church served by Lottie Moon


A Chinese pastor and his wife were slain Aug. 31 at Penglai Christian Church, where Lottie Moon, an icon of Southern Baptist mission work, served in the early 1900s in Penglai, China, reports Baptist Press.

Pastor Qin Jia Ye and his wife Hong En He, both in their 80s, were killed in the church’s office on Wednesday.

The suspect — a 40-year-old former church member — was arrested within an hour of the early morning incident.

The couple’s violent death is a shock to many, both in China and the United States. The church was closed for 49 years after communists came to power at the end of World War II, reopening in 1988 with only 20 people.

Qin reported 300 baptisms several years in a row. Today, there are 3,600 members.

Chinese newspaper accounts state that the suspect entered the church office carrying an axe and struck the pastor and his wife, killing them both.

The church eventually outgrew Moon’s original structure and built a modern 1,500-seat sanctuary next to it with the help of Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in Marietta, Ga.

"From the moment I met Pastor Qin, I could sense a Christ-like spirit," said Bryant Wright, Johnson Ferry senior pastor and current Southern Baptist Convention president. "We are incredibly saddened by this tragic event, but we know one of the Lord’s faithful servants is with Him forever in Heaven."

Qin graciously acted as tour guide for a large number of Southern Baptist leaders passing through Penglai who wanted to connect with the community where Moon served.

Wanda S. Lee, executive director-treasurer of Woman’s Missionary Union, visited the church during a 1997 China tour. In spite of numerous church responsibilities, Qin and his wife welcomed the group warmly, Lee said, and it was obvious they were well-loved and respected.

"We are deeply grieved at the news of [the] death" of Qin and his wife, Lee said. "It is a great loss to the Christian community."

Candace McIntosh, executive director of Alabama WMU, took seven college students to China in 2008 to experience firsthand the history and work of Southern Baptists. Penglai Christian Church was a stop on the tour.

McIntosh remembers admiring Qin’s humble and quiet strength as he prepared for worship, as well as his ability to state the message clearly for all to understand. After the service, Qin spent a great deal of time talking with the team of young women about Moon’s legacy.

"He was so encouraged that younger women were there, learning about the history of Lottie Moon and the Chinese church," McIntosh recalled. "I know the legacy of Lottie Moon will live on, but one of its greatest communicators is no longer with us. I know Qin’s legacy will live on, too."

Report from the Christian Telegraph

Iran: Christians summoned to the office of Ministry of Information


According to subpoenas issued by the intelligence office of the Kurdistan ministry of information, several new Christian believers have been summoned to attend a hearing at the headquarters of the ministry in order to answer questions that the ministry is interested to know about, reports FCNN.

Farsi Christian News Network (fcnn.com) reports that on August 23rd and 24th, intelligence officers contacted several new Christian believers and their families and requested that they attend a hearing at the Ministry of Information. It is important to mention that these individuals had previously been identified by the intelligence officers.

According to this report, these individuals, upon reporting to the offices of the Ministry of Information, were detained and interrogated all day long and subsequently released from custody.

The names of some of these individuals are as follows: Mr. Sadegh, Mr. Farzam, Mr. Nik-khah, Mr. Sarmad, and Mr. Ayyoob. The women were: Ms. Tahereh, Ms. Nahid, and Ms. Roshanak – all from the city of Sanandaj. There were others who were detained from other cities that have requested anonymity. Also 2 new believers from the city of Saghez, one from the town Gharaveh, and one other from the town of Kamyaran that were taken to their local Ministry of Information offices for questioning.

FCNN reports that the intelligence officers were using these interrogations to identify the command chain and responsibilities of each and every one of these believers within the home-church movement in Iran and also to learn more about the tactics used by the believers in evangelism along with more information about a specific home belonging to a Christian man named Mr. Ghanei.

It needs to be reminded that Mr. Ghanei was summoned to the ministry, detained and questioned for his faith and beliefs in Christ for one week in July 2009, while his family and relatives were completely unaware of his whereabouts. Finally, through the follow up and insistence of a lawyer and posting of a bail bond, he was released. Shortly after this incident, Mr. Ghanei was re-arrested on the charge that his bail bond was not invalid and this time he was forced to post a 60 million Tooman bond (Approximately $60,000 USD). Subsequent to this and as of now, there is no information regarding his whereabouts.

According to these new believers who were detained and questioned, the intelligence officers are attempting to identify and locate the whereabouts of Mr. Ghanei in order to summon him to the office of the Ministry of Information. It’s not clear why these officers are so eager to re-question Mr. Ghanei and what seems to be the urgency in this matter.

In connection with this, the intelligence officers and plain clothes interrogators have visited Mr. Ghanei’s house as well as the residence of his father in-law in Sanandaj and have searched the house and questioned the residents. Also and apparently the intelligence officers have targeted several new believers and the church members of the church in Kermanshah who may know of the whereabouts of Mr. Ghanei and placed them under surveillance and undue pressures.

Lastly, it must be remembered that in October 2006, Mr. Ghanei was arrested for the first time and after lengthy interrogation and being charged for converting from Islam to Christianity was released. This cycle of arrest, interrogation, and released from detention was repeated many times over the last few years.

Report from the Christian Telegraph 

ABORTION LAW REFORM PASSED IN AUSTRALIA: A DAY OF BETRAYAL


The passing of the infamous Abortion Law Reform Bill by the Victorian Legislative Assembly marks a day of shame in the history of human rights in the State of Victoria, says Ken Orr, the spokesperson for Right to Life New Zealand Inc. The first duty of the State is to protect the right to life of all of its citizens. It has a special duty to protect the lives of the weak and defenceless in society. The State has an overwhelming interest and duty to protect the lives of its future citizens. The unborn child is a member of the human family and is the weakest and most defenceless member of society. The Bill also denies the personhood of the unborn child. We should remember that it was the denial of the personhood of the Negro that gave the world slavery and the denial of the personhood of the Jew that gave us the holocaust. It is the denial of the personhood of the unborn that is giving us the abortion holocaust.

Human rights are conferred by our Creator, not by the State or by the community. The unborn child is a bearer of human rights. At conception the unborn child is conferred with an inalienable right to life. and should be accorded the respect due to the human person. The passing of this Bill entails the State withdrawing its legal protection for the human rights of the unborn child. It is now no longer a crime to kill an unborn child. This is a violation of the rights of the child. It is also a violation of the human rights of the mother who has a right to have the protection of the State for herself and for her child. The Bill is thus an attack on the dignity of women and of motherhood. The Bill is falsely touted as an empowering victory for women, it is not, it represents further oppression. A woman distressed with an unplanned pregnancy deserves from the community love, compassion and help, not assistance to destroy her child.

The Bill will encourage the further exploitation and abuse of women. Studies have linked abortion to increased substance abuse, suicide and psychiatric ill health. Studies conducted overseas reveal that 64% of women who have an abortion are coerced by the father of the child, family and friends. This Bill will further encourage men to coerce women into having an abortion against their will with threats of abandonment and violence in order to reject their responsibilities for the mother and the child they have fathered.

The Bill is also a violation of the conscience of doctors. The Bill makes it obligatory for a doctor whose conscience is opposed to abortion to refer the women seeking an abortion to another doctor who is prepared to destroy the child. The unborn child is a patient; a doctor has a duty to do no harm and maintain the utmost respect for human life from the moment of conception. This Bill is a threat to the lives of the unborn of every other State and New Zealand.

Report from the Christian Telegraph