The buzz surrounding the apparent adverse health effects of the birdemic peck has increased significantly in the past month or two. At the same time, barely anyone talks about the “none are safe until all are safe” global peck mandates anymore – you know, the ones that threatened to turn the world into a giant totalitarian concentration camp.
I find this strange because back in 2021, the mandates and all the other associated coercion related to the peck were a hot topic for a while on many secular and Christian blogs. Unfortunately, most mainstream Christian churches immediately complied with the “none are safe” dictum, as did the vast majority of Christian bloggers.
Others hedged their positions. For example, one prominent and respected Catholic blogger defended an individual’s free choice to take the peck and claimed that all individuals could do so in good conscience. On the other hand, said Catholic blogger opposed peck mandates and declared that it was unwise to mandate, manipulate, or coerce any individual into taking the peck.
Sounds reasonable, right? Well, the aforementioned Catholic blogger admitted that he exploited his right to take the peck in good conscience. He argued that his free choice in no way compromised his general opposition to peck mandates. He insisted that he should be free to take the peck and that others should be free not to take the peck. Put another way, he firmly believed that the pecks should be voluntary rather than mandatory.
However, said prominent blogger then backed away from his hedge a bit. He stated that if push came to shove, Catholics (and other Christians, I assume) could not reasonably object to a peck mandate merely because it was a mandate.
He then blathered on about prudence and its degrees before constructing a strange analogy between peck mandates and ill-advised tax policies. The remainder of his argument was a tedious philosophical ping-pong match between reasonable and unreasonable attitudes to the peck, life, the universe, and everything.
I suppose it deserves a mention that the Catholic blogger’s employer implemented a peck mandate the second the pecks became available.
I guess it also deserves a speculative mention that this employer peck mandate may have influenced the blogger’s choice to take the peck – at least a little.
Speculation aside, even if it didn’t, does the blogger’s adamant opposition to peck mandates hold up? Or does all his waxing philosophical devolve into an overly elaborate cover for having your cake and eating it too?
Putting Catholic Blogger aside, I sense that many who took the peck -- whether voluntarily or involuntarily -- remain oblivious to the broader spiritual ramifications of their “free” or “coerced” individual choice.
The apparent adverse health effects of the peck are of increasing concern for many.
The still largely unacknowledged and not repented adverse spiritual effects of the peck?
Not so much.
I find this strange because back in 2021, the mandates and all the other associated coercion related to the peck were a hot topic for a while on many secular and Christian blogs. Unfortunately, most mainstream Christian churches immediately complied with the “none are safe” dictum, as did the vast majority of Christian bloggers.
Others hedged their positions. For example, one prominent and respected Catholic blogger defended an individual’s free choice to take the peck and claimed that all individuals could do so in good conscience. On the other hand, said Catholic blogger opposed peck mandates and declared that it was unwise to mandate, manipulate, or coerce any individual into taking the peck.
Sounds reasonable, right? Well, the aforementioned Catholic blogger admitted that he exploited his right to take the peck in good conscience. He argued that his free choice in no way compromised his general opposition to peck mandates. He insisted that he should be free to take the peck and that others should be free not to take the peck. Put another way, he firmly believed that the pecks should be voluntary rather than mandatory.
However, said prominent blogger then backed away from his hedge a bit. He stated that if push came to shove, Catholics (and other Christians, I assume) could not reasonably object to a peck mandate merely because it was a mandate.
He then blathered on about prudence and its degrees before constructing a strange analogy between peck mandates and ill-advised tax policies. The remainder of his argument was a tedious philosophical ping-pong match between reasonable and unreasonable attitudes to the peck, life, the universe, and everything.
I suppose it deserves a mention that the Catholic blogger’s employer implemented a peck mandate the second the pecks became available.
I guess it also deserves a speculative mention that this employer peck mandate may have influenced the blogger’s choice to take the peck – at least a little.
Speculation aside, even if it didn’t, does the blogger’s adamant opposition to peck mandates hold up? Or does all his waxing philosophical devolve into an overly elaborate cover for having your cake and eating it too?
Putting Catholic Blogger aside, I sense that many who took the peck -- whether voluntarily or involuntarily -- remain oblivious to the broader spiritual ramifications of their “free” or “coerced” individual choice.
The apparent adverse health effects of the peck are of increasing concern for many.
The still largely unacknowledged and not repented adverse spiritual effects of the peck?
Not so much.
RSS Feed
