I have heard it suggested that those who voice complaints about the current governance of our private and public lives are behaving smugly, hatefully, and in other unacceptable ways.

While I do understand the concerns here, I also think we should be more careful of generalizations when referring to reactions against, or favorable to, the edicts issued regarding to the pandemic. To dismiss conflicting attitudes or beliefs as smugness, hate, ignorance, racism, or intolerance,” (I’ve seen those words used interchangeably) is disconcerting at best, and seems extremely condescending.

I am an American, and I believe that our Constitution pretty well speaks of and supports our intrinsic human rights. My belief in those rights is unshakeable, and does not depend on the opinions of anyone else to sustain it.

I am also a Christian, and I, too, try to accommodate all viewpoints. But I’m really tired of being told that my beliefs, opinions, and actions are somewhat less than Christ-like. Lately I’ve been told that to be a true Christian, I must completely capitulate to the demands of some majority opinion - to sacrifice my own beliefs on someone else’s altar. I’m told that I must now live in subservience to those we elected to serve us, but have now said that we must unquestioningly accept their ever-changing statistics and obey their commands governing our collective reaction to the pandemic. But I see no such behavior indicated in scripture, none whatsoever. Instead, I see the admonition to love all, live honestly before all, and to walk humbly, having faith in God alone. But when I try to do that, I am derided for it.

One of the cardinal tenets of Philosophy is skepticism – a healthy, sometimes vigorous questioning of the origins, reasoning, and outcomes of a belief, an idea or a suggested course of action. We have groups dedicated to skeptical inquiry in nearly every area, including questions of life, health, our very existence. Yet when someone dares voice a level of skepticism over some of our current events, he or she is certain to be shouted down, and declared to be at the very least, unstable. Why is that?

We have seen and heard conflicting statements made by people such as Bill Gates, whose net worth alone has purchased him a voice in this issue. He has said that we need to be universally vaccinated against this disease, in order to save millions of lives. But Mr. Gates has also made the statement - as have others, whose voices seem to be amplified over our own seemingly lesser voices – that we need to reduce the world population by millions in order to sustain some level that he deems acceptable. Why the seeming contradiction here? Moreover, why should his opinions and pronouncements carry any more weight than mine, or yours? Is there an overriding virtue or value to his billions that justifies such deference?

We hear - from both “sides” of the issue – very large or very small numbers used to buoy or beat down arguments for or against different strategies or suggestions to be used in this fight. Why the disparity? Does no one else sense confusion here? And is no one else alarmed that our “leaders” (regardless of political persuasion) are basing their often Draconian pronouncements on this confusion? Or that some of them seem to be taking advantage of it to circumvent certain statements in our Constitution with which they disagree? Or, apparently, to enrich themselves at the expense of the very people they claim to protect?

No, I think that “smug, hateful,” and those other derogatory words are poor choices to describe the very real differences of opinion here. And if we continue to use them, they may well be the things that will ultimately sever the ties that make us one nation, not to mention the ties to those things that made us a great nation.