The other day, someone who falls into the high-risk category for COVID 19 was picking up some items at the
Farmer’s Market. Because of her own risk factors, but also because she has family members who are high-risk, she
wore a mask as is currently advised by public health. She was confronted by someone who argued that COVID-19
was “blown out of proportion” and that “a true person of faith wouldn’t live in fear and wear a mask.”
I am disturbed by this behaviour on two accounts. First, the person who confronted the mask wearing individual
is someone who works with vulnerable people, and comments about her beliefs about COVID-19 being blown out
of proportion suggest to me that she likely wouldn’t be someone who would take the necessary precautions (at least
not outside of her working environment). Case in point: her comments were not stated from a respectful distance
of 2 meters. Rather, she stood right in front to the mask-wearing shopper to deliver her unsolicited opinion. That’s
worrisome behaviour—particularly given where she works; however, it applies to all of us.
Secondly, the idea that someone’s faith or moral compass should be questioned or challenged for wearing a mask is
perplexing. The Golden Rule (Do to others as you would have them do to you) is a principle that connects most
of humanity worldwide. For people who wear masks, many do so because they wish to protect those around them.
If a mask will help keep you safe, I’ll wear one even though I might find it uncomfortable and hate wearing it.
This certainly follows the moral code of the Golden Rule. I am truly baffled by the disconnect of those who claim
to be excellent (insert faith of choice) yet cannot extend basic human decency and respect to those around them
who are trying to do the right thing by following the recommendations of public health.
I wonder if we could hit a reset button and collectively agree to live by the Golden Rule. How might that look?
Where masks are mandated, please wear one and don’t harass the people who work there who
must follow and enforce the rules. They didn’t create the pandemic or the rules.
Where masks are not mandated and people are wearing them – please don’t ridicule or shame
anyone for doing so. Their intentions are likely to be kind to you or they have very valid reasons
for wearing them that they don’t need to explain to you. Mind your business and keep the
recommended distance of 2 meters.
Where masks are not mandated and people are not wearing them – please don’t ridicule or shame
them for doing so. Protect yourself by staying 2 meters apart and wash or sanitize your hands
afterward.
Ask before you go in to hug someone. Many people are ignoring the advice not to hug, and I
suppose that is their prerogative and risk – but please, if someone is not in the same
mindset, respect their wishes and stick to a smile and tell them you’re happy to see them.
Please be careful about dispensing an opinion or promoting behaviours that could
potentially harm others. We are all wired to accept and internalize information that fits with
our personal beliefs and opinions (this is called confirmation bias). It is likely very true that
the people who devote their lives to medical research and virology might know more than
the rest of us—and even they are still learning and discovering new things about how to
respond to the pandemic.
So, with the Golden Rule in mind, please let’s be gentle and kind with one another and respect the current guidelines
about how to keep everyone safe.
AltonaCAN have freedom of thought and speech. So long as it adheres to the thoughts of this page. To call someone out ( and saying what field they work in) for not agreeing with mask use is just as bad as someone using faith as a weapon against covid.
ReplyDeleteBut then again saying the person talked about faith and then using the golden rule as your argument is again you just doing the same thing.
Maybe put some actual thought into your angry rants.
I disagree. The author of the article respectfully raised their concerns about an incident, and only identified the person involved in general terms. This is as far as one can get from an “angry rant”. I share the author’s perplexity that a person’s faith should be questioned for following health advice.
DeleteI disagree. The author of the article respectfully raised their concerns about an incident, and only identified the person involved in general terms. This is as far as one can get from an “angry rant”. I share the author’s perplexity that a person’s faith should be questioned for following health advice.
Delete