States like Montana have a strong tradition of rugged individualism. That tradition is now in conflict with the need for public health measures. This story in the Los Angeles Times is a fascinating read. A doctor in small-town Montana is a leader of the anti-masking rebellion. So far, she’s winning.
WHITEFISH, MONT. — When Steve Qunell won a seat on the City Council last year in this town of 8,000, he figured he’d be dealing with potholes and affordable housing.
Instead, he finds himself at the center of a raging debate over how to fight the coronavirus, which is surging in Montana like never before.
The state’s governor, Steve Bullock, a Democrat who is in the final stretch of a tight U.S. Senate race and has been reluctant to impose restrictions that could hurt his campaign, called on the hardest-hit counties to consider shutting bars and enforcing a statewide mask mandate.
There was little appetite for that in conservative Flathead County, where the health board has been dominated by an outspoken doctor who argues that the pandemic is a hoax.
That left the Whitefish City Council.
“We are the last line of defense,” Qunell, a 49-year-old high school social studies teacher, told his fellow council members during an online public meeting this week. “Are we going to lead? Or are we just going to follow the nonbelievers in the county?”
Places like Whitefish once could afford to view the pandemic as a distant big-city problem. Through mid-September, sparsely populated Montana had a death toll of 140.
But that figure has doubled over the last five weeks as a new wave of infections sweeps the country. More than 85,000 cases were reported nationwide Friday, the most in a single day since the pandemic began.
The worst outbreaks are in the rural Midwest and Rocky Mountains. With 4,693 new cases over the last week, Montana had the country’s third-highest infection rate, trailing only the Dakotas.
The rise in Montana has overwhelmed efforts to conduct contact tracing and strained health systems across the state.
And as events in Whitefish show, efforts to stem exponential increases are pushing up against a culture that prides itself on rugged independence and freedom from government rules.
Early in the pandemic, Whitefish, a gateway to ski areas and Glacier National Park, moved more decisively than many other communities to contain the virus.
Last spring, the City Council ordered hotels and short-term rental properties to take in only essential workers — a requirement that remained in place until the end of May.
Whitefish was also one of the first cities in Montana to make people wear masks — though the governor soon issued a mandate statewide.
Still, from the beginning, there was strong local opposition to such restrictions.
Leading the resistance was Dr. Annie Bukacek, a 62-year-old internist known for her far-right views and opposition to vaccination.
Flathead County commissioners appointed her to the county health board last December after dismissing two other doctors with more public health experience — changes the commissioners said were meant to increase the diversity of views.
Bukacek became a hero of anti-lockdown activists across the country last spring after she delivered a speech to a local church congregation alleging that the federal government was exaggerating the coronavirus death toll.
“People are being terrorized by fearmongers into relinquishing cherished freedoms,” she told members of the Liberty Fellowship.
She wore a lab coat and stethoscope for her presentation, which has been viewed more than 860,000 times on YouTube.
The congregation is led by Chuck Baldwin, who is described by the Montana Human Rights Network as “the unofficial reverend of the militia movement.” He has defied state orders by continuing to hold in-person services.
Bukacek and a small group of allies protest outside schools and government buildings a few times each week to demand an end to mask requirements and other state restrictions they equate to martial law.
Their message struck some as plausible last summer as cases and deaths remained low, even as more tourists than expected visited Whitefish and the national park.
Eventually though it became clear that Flathead County, population 100,000, would not avoid the kind of suffering that so many other parts of the country had experienced.
The first major outbreak in Whitefish struck a nursing home in August, infecting 43 of the 52 patients — and ultimately killing 13 of them.
The county’s biggest hospital, the Kalispell Regional Medical Center, soon started seeing more admissions to its coronavirus ward.
Erica Lengacher, a 46-year-old critical-care nurse who works nights in the ward, could cope with the stress of watching patients dying. That was part of the job.
Harder to deal with was the indifference that opponents of basic safety measures seemed to have for victims of the pandemic.
“I just felt deep, deep sadness that while I saw patients suffer and die, there was a sense that our community had moved on and didn’t really care,” she said.
“I realize that there’s a historic tension between public health and individual liberties,” she said. “But a good portion of our community is flouting the state mask mandate, and I still can’t get my head around how this has become so politicized and divisive.”
The number of patients on the coronavirus ward has hovered around 29 in recent days, but managers are recruiting more nurses in case things get worse.
Recent outbreaks in Flathead County — where the total number of people known to have been infected doubled to more than 2,800 over the last three weeks — have been traced to large gatherings at four churches, four weddings, three political events and two trade shows.
This week the county health department advised residents to stay at home as much as possible and limit contacts outside their families to no more than six people a week, each for 15 minutes or less. The recommendations have been widely disregarded.
Tamalee St. James Robinson, the interim county health officer, said in an interview that she has the authority to make such measures mandatory but that more rules would be useless because officials were refusing to enforce those already in place.
The county prosecutor, Travis Ahner, said he was focused on crime and didn’t see a point in cracking down on businesses for mask violations.
For their part, the county commissioners released a statement this month supporting “the Constitutional rights of Montanans to make choices about personal protections for themselves.”
“Where does that leave me, just me out there?” Robinson asked.
As for the county health board, Bukacek prevailed in the latest battle over whether to limit social gatherings.
“Statistically, for practical purposes, COVID in Montana has 100% survival,” she said last week during an online public meeting of the board.
“No, it doesn’t!” shouted Dr. Jeffrey Tjaden, a local infectious disease specialist who attended to warn that without immediate action things were likely to get much worse.
A minute later, he interrupted her again to say that he was so fed up with her presentation that he was logging off.
“I’m not saying that the people who died didn’t matter,” she said after he was gone.
At the end of the night, the board members were left with a single proposal: no gatherings of more than 500 people.
They rejected it with a 5-to-3 vote.
That prompted criticism from the governor, who said he was disappointed that the board ignored experts and that “some are trying to politicize this virus” over protecting health and safety.
“The message was presented loud and clear that if the virus spread is not controlled in the Flathead area, schools will have to close, parents will be out of the workforce, businesses will be hurt and the hospital will run out of bed capacity,” Bullock told reporters.
This week, he announced that state investigators had conducted spot checks on more than a dozen businesses in Flathead County and that authorities will ask a judge to temporarily shut down five establishments deemed “egregious violators” for flouting mask requirements and social distancing standards.
The biggest looming threat may be winter, because the virus spreads most easily when people are indoors.
In Whitefish, temperatures plunged Friday as the season’s first major snowstorm hit.
“It’s time for action, and it has unfortunately fallen to us,” Qunell told his colleagues at this week’s City Council meeting.
The city manager suggested writing a letter to the health board encouraging it to act. A councilman said another letter to businesses might persuade them to cooperate.
Qunell didn’t see the point.
“The county’s not going to do anything no matter what letters we write,” he said.
He wanted the council to vote to close bars by 10 p.m. — before they usually get crowded and rowdy — and limit restaurants to 25% of capacity.
But the only thing the council decided was to meet again Monday to consider imposing limits during Halloween weekend, when Whitefish traditionally puts on a popular downtown bar crawl.
In an interview, Qunell said Whitefish must find a balance between protecting citizens and the economy that has eluded national, state and county leaders.
“There’s been a failure of leadership from the very highest levels,” he said. “The responsibility keeps getting pushed downhill, and it’s ended up in our laps.”
Idiots!
You’re at too kind.
Hindervigilanty
Rugged hindervigilist
Pulling rug
From under scientist
Giving tug
There is no fixing stupid…unless the numbers of infected get so high that it no longer can be ‘swept under the rug’.
Illinois Pritzker [D-IL] is closing down inside dining and bars in areas where COVID-19 has risen.
Indiana’s Holcomb [R-IN] knows that the infection levels are the highest since the pandemic started but does nothing because he is up for re-election.
Trump is a national disaster in many ways.
If this disease had happened in 1930, it would have been called Hoover Flu.
Unless the leader of this stupidity catches it and and dies.
I can personally attest to the reality of the Covid. When I got ill Tuesday night last week, I thougt it was probably not Covid since almost all thof people I know report a loss of smell and taste. Finall, I went to the doctor yesterday and tested positive for the Covid. I can tell this person that it is real. I feel like two pounds in a one pound bag. That is medical terminology.
I wish you a full recovery , Roy
Roy,
I hope you recover quickly, with no lingering effects.
Roy, please keep us posted on how you are doing. I agree…wish you a recovery and that you are totally back to normal VERY FAST!
Thank you all. The last two days have felt like the super flu. Anyone who thinks trump got a real case of what I have is full of crap. I wonder if he was not lying about the whole thing to try to get over the debate debacle and re-set his campaign.
Roy, I said here that I had dinner with a doctor who insisted that Trump never had COVID. Every one who treated him signed an NDA.No test results were released. He was out in three days.
Interesting. I passed through Whitefish quite a few times in the summer of 1980, when I was riding freight trains around the Northwest. Whitefish is, among other things, the gateway to the stunning beauty of Glacier National Park. If you hop a freight headed east, you ride right along the southern border of the park. The views are breathtaking.
But the news this post reports is consistent with what I saw politically and culturally in that small Rocky Mountain town: the older men in the hobo jungle in the Whitefish freight yard warned me against being seen around town with my knapsack because of the local bully boys. Several of these men–all of them sexagenerians and septuagenarians who had been riding freights since the 1930s–had been beaten up by the locals. The jungle had been cleared more than once by local vigilantes. In the final analysis, all I did was change trains there and keep moving right through.
We were there two years ago, watching the freights top the mountain at the beautiful old Isaac Walton inn. Breathtaking in its beauty. The old track of the Great Northeen is today one of the world’s busiest.
The ride from Spokane to Whitefish, across, northern Idaho, was beautiful, as was the ride from Whitefish across the bottom of Glacier. One you get out on the plain, though, it’s a bit spooky, especially at night. Havre looked a lot like Whitefish politically and socially….
I visited Kalispell (just down the road) about 15 years ago.
The people I met were very nice.
But there are nut cases everywhere.
Mark, I’m impressed that you saw the USA riding freight trains. So Depression-era!
It was fun! The wages of reading Jack Kerouac at age 15.
I hitchhiked around the country quite a bit as well–coast-to-coast twice.
When I lived in Utah, I hitchhiked a lot cuz I didn’t have a car. I once hitchhiked from the Northeast Entrance of Yellowstone park thru Montana, Idaho and back to Salt Lake.
I was backpacking in Yellowstone when it showed and closed all the roads to the south thru the park.
I have to admit I took some scary rides over the years just because I had no choice.
But for the mist part, the prop!e who picked me up were nice normal folks.
I would not even consider hitchhiking these days with all the nutcases on the loose.
You remind me that the Blackfoot people live there. Owe saw a presentation on Blackfoot dancing and culture at the Glacier east entrance. Led by a public school teacher, it was a wonderful introduction to the once powerful people of the plains. The rate of poverty in Browning is such that I worry about the people in th face of the Covid. The Navaho experience was very harsh according to a Navaho friend.
Libertarianism, knuckleheadedness dressed up in a tuxedo or lipstick on a pig. It’s an ugly, selfish philosophy that promotes “free” (freedom for the billionaires to rape the economy to their advantage) market solutions, privatization and deregulation, blah, blah, blah.
KEY word: selfish. Only those who already have means can push this type of “freedom”
I think the libertarian doctor should treat all the people who don’t wear masks (not wearing a mask herself, of course), and the remaining doctors who believe in science should focus on treating those who wear masks.
Maybe the libertarian internist sees patients, but most of anti-maskers who work in medicine seem to be the ones who don’t actually treat many patients for illnesses. More types like the radiologist who is Trump’s medical advisor.
Libertarianism happens when one’s social and political development stops developing after age twelve. It’s a cognitive disability and should be treated as such.
Blog readers can be consistent and ignore that Annie Bukacek is head of the the Montana Pro-Life Coalition, that her health care practice is named, Hosanna, that the practice’s website features a letter to the editor against a doctor whose reproductive care includes willingness to perform abortions. Blog readers can ignore that Bukacek has 5 kids. And, they can ignore that her Covid speech was posted at the local site of the Ordo Militaris Catholicus Radio. When they do, they are similar to mainstream media.
For new blog readers, the anti-government libertarians are inextricably linked to the religious right whose main power is not evangelical but , instead, Catholic. It is an alliance working in every state, e.g. Kentucky. A Kentucky, Republican state Senate candidate
states in his broadcast ads that as an incumbent he has and will, if re-elected, work for Catholic schools. Chris McDaniel.
Catholic blog commenters here have advised a Democratic strategy of not discussing religion. My view, it ties one hand behind the backs of Democrats.
Linda,
You always make some good points, but the problem is that too often the nuance of a sect of extremely rich billionaires who seem to worship money and power over anything else is confused with the Catholic religion and seems to smear the entire religion.
For example, I’m Jewish and there are some Jewish sects of ultra Orthodox that are spurning mask wearing and social distancing and doing some truly reprehensible things. And their leaders have disproportionate political power in Republican politics and want more.
But those sects are not what the practice of Judaism is all about. They are not even what Orthodox Judaism is about! Most Orthodox Jews don’t belong to those sects, and Jews who attend Reform synagogues or Conservative synagogues are entirely different.
I would be very offended if someone who rightly criticized those ultra Orthodox Jews wrote posts that seemed to imply that the problem was their religion – Judaism. It is not. It is that they practice a very repressive religion that is lightly connected to the mainstream Judaism that the majority of American Jews practice, and the vast majority of American Jews have nothing in common with them.
So I just advise you to be careful to note that what you are criticism isn’t really the Catholic religion, which is led by a Pope who seems to be a genuinely good man trying to make people’s lives better. And I say that even though he is pro-life. And that describes the vast majority of people who practice Catholicism, who do not worship at the “Church of Leonard Leo”, which is a Catholic sect that is to most Catholic Americans what those ultra orthodox sects are to most Jews.
It is important to point out when those small sects are growing in number and seizing power, as you rightly do. But it also important to note that this isn’t about the practice of Catholicism (or in the case of those ultra Orthodox, the practice of Judaism). It is about a small group of people who are fanatic in their quest for power and are using religion – and not just the Catholic Church – to seize as much as they can. (Amy Barrett is one of them, because it isn’t the practice of Catholicism they worship, it is power).
So please make that clear in your posts because sometimes it is possible to read them as a smear of the Catholic religion, and it is wrong to smear the Catholic religion just because a small group of practitioners with a lot of money and power have been using it to seize even more power for themselves.
NYC-
My intended “implication” is not that an individual’s faith “is the problem”.
My implications are limited to, first, (1) overt discrimination against women, done in the name of a specific religious sect and, carried out within the sect, which becomes critical when that sect gains in political influence. (I’ll leave the discussion about gay rights to others.)
Secondly, my implication of a problem is directed at officials of the church and those wearing clothing that represents the church who engage in political activities. Also, if a government official like William Barr says he wants to introduce religion at every opportunity, review and criticism is fair. If jurists like Amy Barrett are Manchurian candidates for Leo Leonard, which If I recall correctly you wrote, and they have an overriding force driving them which is religious in nature, focus and questions about it are legitimate. The Koch greed agenda as the basis for opposition to abortion and same sex marriage would appear to have highly tenuous links.
When an elected representative like Chris McDaniels says he works to gain tax support for religious run schools that can discriminate, whose employees are exempt from civil rights employment law, whose hierarchy, by edict, is exclusively male, I expect focus and questions about it.
I disagree with the media who appear to follow your thinking- it’s o.k. to mention evangelicals’ bid for power but, not Catholics.
O.K. to call out Augusta golf course for discriminating against black people. But, not O.K. to do the the same for women. O.K. to disparage Bukacek’s anti-mask policy. But, not o.k. to flesh out the bigger power picture of the alliance between wealthy libertarian goals and authoritarian religious positions. O.K. to expose anti-abortion, anti-gay and anti- Planned Parenthood activities but not their funding sources if they are the USCCB.
I understand fully that what I have written will not persuade you. Thank you for not trolling me, not calling me ignorant and suggesting that I personally have had a bad experience with a specific religion that led me to my view.
Linda,
You do often persuade me! The first time you mentioned Leonard Leo, I was ignorant enough to dismiss you and you were absolutely right! I’m sorry about that and I appreciate that you are trying to inform people of something that we absolutely need to be informed about.
I was just trying to figure out if there was a way to do it so that people didn’t view it as an attack on Catholicism itself. Because I fear that the important points you make get lost.
You are absolutely right that the media gets this wrong, too. You made very good points in both your posts, but I think the challenge is to figure out how to frame it better so that those who try to discredit your good points as being “anti-Catholic” can’t do so.
Mayor de Blasio tried to get some ultra Orthodox Jews to stop having large gatherings because COVID cases were rising, and it was against the law! Some people on the far right immediately started crying that de Blasio was an anti-Semite and tried to get the media to play along but it didn’t work because the reporting made it clear that it was only a small subsection of synagogues in NYC that were doing this. To be clear, the “de Blasio is an anti-Semite” narrative was still being pushed non-stop by the far right media, but it did not get legitimacy because the mainstream media did not give it legitimacy. But that is because the narrative being pushed by critics of those ultra orthodox synagogue didn’t give any ammunition to those on the right desperate to point out “anti-Semitism”.
I don’t have any idea how to do this and I know it is very difficult. I thought Sheldon Whitehouse did a very good job during the hearings. He did leave religion out of it, but perhaps there is a way to discuss this to make it clear that these people are using religion to further their own desire for power. I don’t really think these leaders are truly religious men or women. They have no problem dismissing anything the current Pope says if it doesn’t align with what they want. They pick and choose the elements of their religion they want to further a far right wing agenda and they seem to be rabidly jealous of how religion gave people like them godlike power over the masses in days long past. They want to return to that time, and if that means rejecting some of the teachings of Pope Francis, they don’t care because it was never about religion for them. It was about those in power deciding how other people would worship and live their lives in service to those in power.
NYC
Thank you for the observations.
Pope Francis is not accepted by many religious Americans who are powerful. The Knights of Columbus shrine used for Trump’s photo op was to Saint John Paul II, the preferred Pope of those influencing decisions in D.C. and state capitols. Too many, I fear, are like the Sisters of Mary who were photo props at Trump’s rally in Circleville, Ohio. I doubt there was much reflection in their decision to be there and to support Trump.
IMO, it is unwise for other religious people in America to view the Catholic Church as benign and trending towards liberalism or, to rely on the long arc of time for a change to modernism to occur. The change may go either way, while in the interim serious consequences
happen to real people.
I do see the point made. If it is unfounded to blame powerful Catholics like Barr and Leo and, those within the WH who confirm, themselves, that they work for a Catholic agenda in the Trump administration then, it is unfounded to blame the religious during Hitler’s Gernany for mere acquiescence. (Greg, I acknowledge you’ve presented a stronger case for their role.)
I don’t see quite as clearly that Americans fighting for democracy would be better off not knowing the information I provide.
I have found it disquieting that there is no willingness at this blog to acknowledge the co-hosted (Koch network and state Catholic Conferences) school choice rallies in state capitols.
On the broader front, it is disquieting that Bill Moyer’s
interview so muted the main point that some missed it. (The interview was posted by Diane a few days ago.) Each person can form his or her own opinion about the reason for the article’s “rhetorical gymnastics”, as Greg described it. Never the less, carry on as if it wasn’t written.
Linda,
Consider us informed. Now, unless you have some remedies to offer, move on to another topic.
Linda, I think NYCPSP makes a nuanced comment which captures my sentiments far better than I’ve been able to do.
Whether or not & to what degree today’s church officials engage in political activities is something to note/ call out, as you do, and always has been, throughout Christian history. Yet you often imply that simply remaining in the RC church is a sign of intellectual sophistry or worse. [And throwing in stuff like ‘and she has five children’ to the issues w/Barrett is typically gratuitous, just smacks of old-timey prejudice.]
The point being, the choice to stay in the Catholic church is not made simply on weighing ethical and political factors, but many factors with spiritual, historical, social, intellectual, cultural resonance. I had a true choice, as one raised in multiple Prot and Cath congregations simultaneously (& a promise not to decide until 18yo). For me, at the most basic, choosing Catholicism meant joining the most ancient Christian tradition. This was underlined for me the first time I attended Jewish services: the rites were nearly identical. I liked the idea of being part of a body which was still trying to accommodate the vagaries of history and culture since the earliest days. High Anglicans & Lutherans had virtually identical rites—but not beliefs. Which goes to my general problems with mainstream Prot sects: overly secular; assign miracles to the deep past; services dominated by lengthy sermons, meaning one was at the whim of whatever minister was rotated in. [Compare to the 7-min Catholic homily 😉] I never considered any form of Evangelism as it felt culturally alien (in an unpleasant way).
There is no question that the failure to ordain females priests and thus usher women into the hierarchy could be a dealbreaker for those choosing between Catholic and Protestant. So too the laws of celibacy for priests, and the failure to admit homosexuals to the fold [communion, marriage]. Catholic hierarchy pushing to be included in public funding (charters, vouchers) doesn’t enter into this for me. Many Protestant sects do the same.
Yes, I do have remedies.
Liberal, practicing Catholics could contact their legislators and tell them that the politicking of the church for policy and politicians harmful to common goods, women, gay people, etc. disqualifies the church from tax avoidance.
Liberal, practicing Catholics could write to the state Catholic Conferences and tell them the lying propaganda from billionaire school privatizers posted at their sites is commission of the sin of bearing false witness.
Liberal, practicing Catholics could find opportunities to expose racist, Catholic politicians who support school privatization.
Liberal practicing Catholics could voice opposition to inner city school chains that deny students 20% of the educations their wealthier peers receive and, they could vocally oppose the schools taking poor kids’ paychecks.
When a Democrat is elected President, liberal practicing Catholics could fund efforts to expand SCOTUS, to dilute the impact of conservative Catholic judges. And, laws that they could work to have reviewed are Espinosa, Biel and Little Sisters of the Poor.
Liberal practicing Catholics could reach out to conservative convents to try to inform them about the dangers of Trump support to the lives of women and children.
bethree
I read what you wrote. My question- individual gain at what cost to society at large?
Linda, let’s say for the sake of argument that every negative thing you have said about Catholics is correct. Now, can you stop posting about how dreadful Catholics are? I hope we elect the Catholic candidate Joe Biden. Or do you prefer the Norman Vincent Peale Protestant, Trump?
Trump is supported by Jim Bakker, Paula White-Cain, Robert Jeffress and many other tv preachers.
Questioning my support for Biden is a contrived argument. My record of comments in support of him and against Trump speak for themselves. Your second question should be asked of Bishops Tobin, Dolan and Hebda, among others.
What is the expectation ?
-after I identify a disproportionate number of people enabling Trump who belong to the same organization
– after I correct the media’s false portrayal of SCOTUS judges as evangelicals and media’s false depiction of the incident at the Knights of Columbus photo op
– after I identify the religion that drives the man who put the SCOTUS conservative judges in power
-after I recite Barr’s quote about introducing religion at every opportunity,
-after I report Ohio nuns as photo props at an Ohio Trump rally
– after I report the statistics for white Catholic Trump voting
– after I’ve questioned repeated failures to call out state Catholic Conferences for undermining public schools
– after I report a candidate’s ads explicitly aimed at getting Catholic votes, “supports Catholic schools”
– after reporting the world’s largest lay organization is headed by a former legislative aide to Jesse Helms and that that same organization is promoting GOP candidates
– after describing the links between the Koch network and Catholic organizations sponsoring choice rallies in state capitols
-after pointing out the US’ 3rd largest employer filed suit and won the right to exempt its employees from civil rights employment law
-after Bill Moyers confirmed an absence of review of Catholic influence on Trump and GOP politicians and implementation of conservative policy
I am unable to find political activity tied to another religion that has had the successes that powerful conservative Catholics have had.
IMHO, the significant question is, what expectations should the majority of Americans,, who oppose conservative policy have of the members of the organization that perpetuates it?
And secondly, does it advance a modern and pluralistic society to ignore a situation like the one in the subject of this post isn’t linked to the religious zeal associated with the pro-life agenda.
Linda,
I know you won’t vote for Trump. You will vote for Biden, the Catholic candidate.
I’m just asking politely if you could change the subject.
If someone ranted about Jews every day, as happens on other sites, I would be very upset. I know good Catholics who are very liberal. Blanket labeling of every Catholic is unfair.
Please change topics. We know what you think. Enough.
Contrived argument. Very good and accurate. I’m not sure how much more strongly we can support Biden/Harris. In going down the list: check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, and check.
If I remember correctly, the first time we found common ground was when I tried–futilely, know–to point out that the Idiot’s 2016 campaign micro-targeted working class Catholics in eastern Ohio, southeastern Michigan and southern Wisconsin as an example of your cogent, accurate comments and was immediately targeted with out of context reactions and it’s been a “fun” ride on this topic ever since.
(Humor alert!) Recently I communicated with a good friend who is a skeptical Catholic and sent him the story about the priest in New Orleans. He sent me the article about how the archbishop of San Francisco performed the exorcism of a protest site saying, “the experts in the field tell me that Latin tends to be more effective against the devil because he doesn’t like the language of the church.” That led me to comment, “I’m apologize in advance because I know I will offend you, but in my opinion, Catholicism is a cult of magical thinking.” His response (here’s the punch line): “What do you mean? The heart of the ritual is cannibalistic (flesh) and vampiric (blood) and they worship a zombie.” Love it when people can laugh about themselves.
Greg,
I’m so grateful that you comment here. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and learning.
GregB: Magical thinking…try this one on. It was sent to me by a Trump lover who thought I’d like it. I think this shows a cult of nut cases. God TV? The NRA has their TV so why not God?
………………………………………
I thought you would like this post on God TV:
Christian YouTuber Opens Up Journey From New Age Witchcraft To Jesus
Jesus can deliver anyone, at any time, no matter what!
A Christian YouTuber boldly shared her journey from being possessed by demons behind the new age witchcraft until Jesus came to set her free.
Christian YouTuber Shares Life Testimony
Serene Chah grew up in a mentally and emotionally abusive family. So, she did not have a good relationship with them.
Then as a young adult, she had a boyfriend who was abusive too. She lived her life filled with negativity and abuse. And for 21 years, Serene never knew what it feels like to have a good sleep. And she would often have nightmares and suffer from sleep paralysis.
Hearing The Gospel
At 19 years old, a friend preached the Gospel to her. She heard about Jesus for the first time and went on with her life. One day when she had her heartbroken, after crying for five hours, a voice spoke to her. It said, “cry out to Jesus now.” So, desperately, in her brokenness, she cried out to Jesus for help. Then immediately, she felt a Person hugging her from behind. It was her very first encounter with the Lord Jesus.
After that encounter, she tried to find out what she had experienced. So, she started attending church. But she still had a lot of demonic attacks. And at 21 years old, she was introduced to new age and witchcraft. Moreover, she turned to drugs as a desperate escape from all the pain she had felt.
New Age And Witchcraft
Later on, Serene got extremely involved with the new age practice and witchcraft. Her mental state declined and the false power became greater and greater.
Until one day, her Christian friend gave her a Bible. She read the Bible for 8-hours straight while stuck in a hair salon appointment. Serene discovered the truth and found out what she was doing wrong. But on the next day, she got demon-possessed.
A pastor came and prayed for her and she got delivered. That weekend, she also got baptized. Shortly after, she was also baptized with the Holy Spirit! More so, she dove deeper into the Word of God and spent six hours reading the Bible every day for 90 days. And finally, after four months Serene was completely delivered and was set free!
https://godtv.com/christian-youtuber-new-age-witchcraft-jesus/
That was hilarious, Carol.
This paragraph had me do a spit-take: “Serene Chah grew up in a mentally and emotionally abusive family. So, she did not have a good relationship with them.”
And…who in the world sits through an 8 hour hair appointment? That poor woman!
Linda, my god, the Catholic thing.
Direct your question to Bill Moyer. A few days ago, he identified the omission.
A note of caution for Moyer’s listeners/ readers. His message was so muted that at least one Ravitch reader didn’t identify his main point.
Linda I missed that recent blog post on a Bill Moyers interview, & can’t locate it in ‘search all posts’. Do you remember the post’s title, or maybe can give me link? Thanks.
“The Most Important Radical Right Wing Group You Never Heard Of”. 10-25
Some time ago I came to the conclusion that the Koch Brothers-ALEC billionaire led libertarian movement, which includes Betsy the Brainless Beast DeVos, takes individualism to the ultimate extreme thinking everyone should fend for themselves with no public safety net at all including Social Security, unemployment benefits, health care, et al.
If you have a job and don’t earn enough to pay the rent, buy enough food, and have medical care, they do not care, because they were born with everything and cannot understand why everyone isn’t like them, wealthy without a worry in the world.
The billionaire libertarians behind this movement have a lawless wild-west mentality.
How does the GOP/ Betsy’s coalition with the religious fit into the picture?
Around 100 Stanford faculty members condemn Hoover fellow and White House advisor Scott Atlas’ controversial views on COVID-19
More than 100 Stanford affiliates in areas such as epidemiology, infectious disease, immunology and health policy condemned the “falsehoods and misrepresentations of science recently fostered by Dr. Scott Atlas” in the letter. The authors cited the Hippocratic Oath and their “moral and ethical responsibility” to speak out.
Atlas denies proposing herd immunity policy to President Trump
Stanford physicians and researchers published an open letter to the Stanford University School of Medicine faculty on Wednesday that criticized Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Dr. Scott Atlas’ controversial views on the COVID-19 pandemic, countering his stances with a list of statements on COVID-19 infection and mitigation supported by a “preponderance of data.”
Atlas, the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford Medical Center, was named senior advisor to President Trump and member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force in August. He drew sharp criticism after the Washington Post reported that he advocated for a herd immunity strategy to accelerate reopening, although Atlas denies proposing a herd immunity policy to the president or the task force.
More than 100 Stanford affiliates in areas such as epidemiology, infectious disease, immunology and health policy condemned the “falsehoods and misrepresentations of science recently fostered by Dr. Scott Atlas” in the letter. The authors cited the Hippocratic Oath and their “moral and ethical responsibility” to speak out.
Stanford Medicine spokesperson Julie Greicius told The Daily that Atlas “has no current affiliation with Stanford Medicine” and that “we … strongly support the freedom of our Stanford Medicine faculty to voice their position based on their expertise.” The University and the Hoover Institution declined to comment on Atlas’ views or role in the White House.
Herd immunity controversy
The herd immunity strategy Atlas has previously proposed would allow for transmission of the coronavirus in order to build a certain level of immunity in the population while keeping vulnerable populations isolated. This would accelerate the reopening of businesses and the economy since the vast majority of the population would not need to isolate or practice social distancing measures.
While Atlas denies he suggested a herd immunity policy to the president, he has repeatedly advanced the herd immunity strategy as one of the best ways to “eradicate the threat of the virus” in Hoover Institution virtual policy briefings, in an April op-ed published in The Hill and in his May comments to a United States Senate committee. In a July Fox News Radio interview, Atlas said that “low-risk groups getting the infection is not a problem. In fact, it’s a positive.”
In their open letter, Stanford affiliates wrote that “encouraging herd immunity through unchecked community transmission is not a safe public health strategy” and that it “would do the opposite, causing a significant increase in preventable cases, suffering and deaths, especially among vulnerable populations, such as older individuals and essential workers.”
The authors added that the “safest path” to herd immunity is through the use of effective vaccines.
Research published in August indicates that individuals infected with COVID-19 may be at risk of being re-infected since immunity may only last several months, which would make herd immunity impossible to achieve.
…………………………………………………………..
Scott W. Atlas on COVID-19 and Health Care | Hoover Virtual Policy Briefing
Mar 26, 2020
Hoover Institution
UPDATED SEP 9 AT 22:00
Stanford Medicine
September 9, 2020
Dear Colleagues,
As infectious diseases physicians and researchers, microbiologist and immunologists,
epidemiologists and health policy leaders, we stand united in efforts to develop and promotescience-based solutions that advance human health and prevent suffering from the coronavirus pandemic. In this pursuit, we share a commitment to a basic principle derived from the Hippocratic Oath: Primum Non Nocere (First, Do No Harm).
To prevent harm to the public’s health, we also have both a moral and an ethical responsibility to call attention to the falsehoods and misrepresentations of science recently fostered by Dr. Scott Atlas, a former Stanford Medical School colleague and current senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Many of his opinions and statements run counter to established science and, by doing so, undermine public-health authorities and the credible science that guides effective public health policy. The preponderance of data, accrued from around the world, currently supports each of the following statements:
● The use of face masks, social distancing, handwashing and hygiene have been shown to
substantially reduce the spread of Covid-19. Crowded indoor spaces are settings that
significantly increase the risk of community spread of SARS-CoV-2.
● Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 frequently occurs from asymptomatic people, including
children and young adults, to family members and others. Therefore, testing
asymptomatic individuals, especially those with probable Covid-19 exposure is important
to break the chain of ongoing transmission.
● Children of all ages can be infected with SARS-CoV-2. While infection is less common
in children than in adults, serious short-term and long-term consequences of Covid-19 are
increasingly described in children and young people.
● The pandemic will be controlled when a large proportion of a population has developed
immunity (referred to as herd immunity) and that the safest path to herd immunity is
through deployment of rigorously evaluated, effective vaccines that have been approved
by regulatory agencies.
● In contrast, encouraging herd immunity through unchecked community transmission is
not a safe public health strategy. In fact, this approach would do the opposite, causing a
significant increase in preventable cases, suffering and deaths, especially among
vulnerable populations, such as older individuals and essential workers.
Commitment to science-based decision-making is a fundamental obligation of public
health policy. The rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the US, with consequent morbidity
and mortality, are among the highest in the world. The policy response to this pandemic
must reinforce the science, including that evidence-based prevention and the safe
development, testing and delivery of efficacious therapies and preventive measures,
including vaccines, represent the safest path forward. Failure to follow the science — or
deliberately misrepresenting the science – will lead to immense avoidable harm.
We believe that social and economic activity can reopen safely, if we follow policies that
are consistent with science. In fact, the countries that have reopened businesses and
schools safely are those that have implemented the science-based strategies outlined
above.
As Stanford faculty with expertise in infectious diseases, epidemiology and health policy,
our signatures support this statement with the hope that our voices affirm scientific,
medical and public health approaches that promote the safety of our communities and
nation.
[This is followed by the names, positions and places of work of all who signed this letter.]