Liberty and freedom of conscience permeate the foundation of our nation and comprise the platform of American democracy as embodied in the United States Constitution. Our brilliant forefathers zealously constructed the Bill of Rights for two fundamental reasons: ensuring federalism - a separation of federal and state authority, and separation of administrative power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. These principles safeguard our liberties against government tyranny and originated in the early 1600s when the first Pilgrims left England and crossed the treacherous sea in their quest for liberty of conscience in the new land.
As dedicated federalists, our founders believed it was their duty to enact effective government, but never control the conscience. Notwithstanding their convictions on religious liberty, many embraced deontological biblical principles. During the Madison debates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin expressed frustration over the political discord by requesting each session open with prayer declaring, “The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--God governs the affairs of men. I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” (Library of Congress, n.d., para.). Despite this, Franklin recognized religious liberty and the right of conscience as synonymous with a truly free republic. Undoubtedly, God ordained these men since exercising free will is rooted in the foundation of Heaven’s government and creation’s original design.
This governing principle is exemplified in the words of Joshua,
And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the river or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. (Joshua 24:15)
Years later, Elijah stood before ancient Israel and declared, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him” But the people said nothing (1 Kings 18:21). Unfortunately, prophecy reveals that our freedom of choice will not last. We have now entered that prophecy and, like ancient Israel, the culture of silence and indecision is repeated in the Laodicea church today. However, God’s governing principles have never changed.
Since the beginning of 2020, our nation and the world have been under a blanket of fear from the novel COVID-19 pandemic. Despite missing the traditional full FDA approval, a vaccine was rushed into production and released to the population in December 2020. On August 23, 2021, the FDA approved the Pfizer-BioMTech vaccine marketed as Comirnaty, for Americans age 16-years and older. Subsequently, on September 9, 2021, President Biden delivered a pointed speech to the nation, rebuking the 80-million (25%) of Americans who have exercised their right to refuse the covid-19 vaccination. The president accused “a distinct minority of Americans” of causing deaths, and claimed, “That 25 percent can cause a lot of damage — and they are.” The population specifically targeted for rebuke are members of the nation’s largest employer: healthcare professionals.
Most health professionals practice from convictions founded on truth, autonomy, and dedication to humanitarianism. Deontological ethics such as beneficence, the act of doing good; nonmaleficence, the duty to “not harm;” justice, the principle of fairness and equality; and autonomy, the right to self-determination, is ingrained in practitioners at the onset of fundamental clinical education. Many medical and nursing organizations have a Code of Ethics or position statements on ethical issues such as informed consent and the protection of human rights.
The Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki along with deontological principles, served to guide the development of ethical practice policies and are expressed in the American Nurses Association (ANA) document: Human Rights Guidelines for Nurses in Clinical and Other Research. The document states that “Each individual has the right of self-determination concerning what will be done to his person” (American Nurses Association, ANA, 1985, p. 1). Furthermore, in 1990, the Patient Self-Determination Act was passed by Congress to provide citizens the opportunity to prepare advanced directives in the event they are unable to choose for themselves. A healthcare provider’s duty to patient advocacy includes assuring individuals of their right to consent or refuse treatment as stated in the Patient Bill of Rights. Despite personal convictions, freedom of conscience principles must be a priority in patient care, especially if practitioners believe they are acting out of beneficence and justice. Clear, concise, and acceptable for the common good, right? Unfortunately, the tide has turned.
On October 1, 2021, American physician Anthony Fauci told Canadians at McGill University that a pandemic is one of the scenarios that the greater good supersedes individual rights, and previously accused unvaccinated healthcare professionals of creating a new surge of COVID infections. During the September 9th address, President Biden reinforced this claim by declaring that our nation is “in a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” therefore, he is expanding a mandate that all healthcare workers–- a total of 17 million, are to receive the vaccine in order to keep their jobs. Biden declared that he is using the authority of the federal government because he can, and proclaimed, “We need to do more. This is not about freedom or personal choice. It’s about protecting yourself and those around you.”
Brothers and sisters, please stop and consider the implications of these statements.
Endorsed by President Biden, on November 5, 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), a federal executive branch agency and financial governing body of our healthcare system, enacted an “emergency regulation” requiring all Medicare/Medicaid certified providers to mandate the covid vaccine to all employees on condition of employment. All providers, including SDA institutions, face financial collapse if non-compliant with CMS regulations. Previous vaccine exemptions became void, resulting in a herd of resignations and terminations of healthcare workers, especially nurses. And it continues. Then, on November 16, the National Council on State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN), released a policy brief warning professional nurses to refrain from providing public misinformation through written or verbal methods, including social media. The warning admonishes nurses to follow CDC and FDA guidelines or they may “place their licenses and career in jeopardy.” Just two more examples of methods that are chipping away medical ethics and targeting American healthcare providers.
Freedom and the right of conscience are disappearing for those who have prevailed on the hospital front lines since the pandemic began.
Disappearing for those previously hailed as “heroes”, who sacrificed their own physical and mental health for others.
Disappearing for those who worked months without a vaccine, entering the sickrooms of the afflicted where most would never set foot.
Last year’s “heroes” are mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and our brothers and sisters in the church. So, why are many believers accusing their brethren of malicious intent when they are exercising their God-given right of conscience? Are believers following biblical counsel to “test the spirits”? (1 John 4:1). Does God condone forced compliance, or honor our free will? Are the thoughts and science of man higher than his author, The Great Physician?
Ten states have filed lawsuits regarding the vaccine mandate for healthcare workers, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has temporarily suspended vaccine enforcement. This unprecedented issue will probably move to the United States Supreme Court. While this is good news, evidence shows that social conditioning, fueled by government, media, and fear reactions by the public is already occurring. As Paul predicted in 2 Timothy 3:1-7, 13-14, society is gradually accepting what was once appalling. For most over twenty-five, it was hard to imagine that our nation would advocate for a national Sunday law, violate the conscience and force compliance. However, in light of today’s mandates that disregard health and bodily autonomy, it is easy to see. Even our denomination’s boundaries have become blurred, and little distinction remains between secular and faith-based healthcare providers. How can this happen?
History recorded Adolf Hitler systematically manipulated and conditioned millions of vulnerable Germans to believe that Jews were dregs of society, and unworthy of living among them. In his autobiography, Mein Kampf, Hitler vehemently believed he was fulfilling God’s purpose, and prophetically acting from divine providence. Efforts to control population growth led Chinese president Deng Xiopeng to enact the infamous “one child population policy” in 1979. Fearing fines and punishment, millions of Chinese were forced to abandon their female babies or commit infanticide, and conditioned to accept these methods as necessary for “the greater good.” It is highly speculated that these human rights violations continue today and are among the greatest atrocities of infanticide since ancient kings built sacrificial temples to Moloch (1 Kings 11:7; 2 Chronicles 28:3, 33:6; Jeremiah 19:2-6). The common thread between these charlatan leaders and their ability to sway the masses lies in their powers of persuasion and subtle fear. A gradual descent into the abyss of immoral and unethical sanctions began to plague these societies. In some cases, former God-fearing individuals gradually became betrayers of righteousness, siding with oppression, and rewarded for obedience to the state.
Fear is Satan’s modus operandi, and is often covertly used under false appearances of compassion and concern for “the greater good.” Seventh-day Adventist health institutions are not immune from government mandates and fail to recognize the subtle use of force, persuasion, and coercion in their ranks.
Some of our denomination’s medical and religious leaders have used passive-aggressive coercion, designed to trigger guilt in those exercising their right of conscience and bodily autonomy. They use analogous comparisons of obeying “smoking, motorcycle and seat belt” laws with the same relevance as injecting a substance into the human body, and their biased opinions often follow self-aggrandizing statements regarding their years of medical expertise. Can the average church member debate a medical university president with fifty years of public health experience?
Last September, a Lutheran pastor in the Pacific NW wrote a commentary in support of the mandates, and accused Christians who obtain religious exemptions, of using the Lord’s name in vain and sinning by their refusal. Galatians 5:13-14 was quoted to accuse believers of not fulfilling the whole law through love, and failing to protect the vulnerable by using their freedom to indulge in the flesh. The commentary went viral and was supported by many Seventh-Day Adventists. Could we be witnessing a fear-based social conditioning that triggers religious leaders to coerce the brethren to violate their conscience?
While no argument against love as a primary law of God’s government, omitting free will as a foundation ignores the main theme of Satan’s accusations toward God. Unlike the adversary’s methods, Heaven’s constitution will include freedom of conscience and free will. “Testing the spirits” as directed in 1 John reveals a contradiction between the right of bodily autonomy and the government mandate, as does inspiration,
“Compelling power is found only under Satan’s government. The Lord’s principles are not of this order. . . . God’s government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power” (Desire of Ages, pg. 759).
Forgetting the convictions of our forefathers and the blood that was shed for our freedom, will repeat the past. The following historical sentiment conveyed by James Madison in 1830, expresses the concepts that should inhabit the consciousness of legislators and all Americans before our right of conscience becomes history,
“The framers of our Constitution recognize the eternal principle that man's relation with his God is above human legislation and his rights of conscience inalienable. Reasoning was not necessary to establish this truth; we are conscious of it in our own bosoms. It is this consciousness, which, in defiance of human laws, has sustained so many martyrs in tortures and flames. They felt that their duty to God was superior to human enactments, and that man could exercise no authority over their consciences. It is an inborn principle, which nothing can eradicate” (Church State Council, 2014, para. 4).
****
Mary Matese MSN-Ed, RN-BC
