Do as your told

nbc24.com...


This is in response to senator Rand Paul questioning the dean of Johns Hopkins about why it is mandatory for their university to have three covid 19 vaccinations.

Rand Paul ask these questions and more to the dean of nursing at Johns Hopkins who replies I don't make the decisions at johns Hopkins.

even when it is noted by Rand Paul that leading European countries are not requiring this for their university.

I want to think Rand Paul for being Laser focused on this.

Now the next case.

Our fool of a governor in Washington state has said that to be a state worker you need to have one vaccination to be hired by the state, but it is not mandated that you have the boosters. I ask what sense does this make. if the first vaccine you had which is no longer in your body a couple years later you have the same protection now has someone who is not vaccinated (again following their logic) why are the boosters not mandatory? If it is truly about saving lives and having healthy communities and all this and that why not have the booster be mandatory with the initial vaccine?



Brandi lays it out at 19:00 minutes in.



this makes no sense. its all about being in cult club. Even when thing dont make any sense you gootta just follow along with the cult and DO AS YOUR TOLD.

a reply to: American-philosopher


"Just doing our jobs."

Wasnt a defense then and wont be one in the future.

a reply to: American-philosopher

Yes, another medical decision by a politician. Should I consult my doctor before voting next time? A post office worker? How about a banker?

Oh, you can edit out all those edit lines at the bottom except the one you make by editing them out.

So this is what it looks like when common control out convicts common senses.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: American-philosopher

Should I consult my doctor before voting next time?

If you are someone who votes you could see a doctor/psychiatrist but I'm not sure if he/she can help you. All I can say is: Get well soon. You are not the only one with this affliction. Sadly, treatments are not insured, then again, they're usually for free anyway and they do not require any expensive Big Pharma drug.

Lessons Not Learned From History (Awake!—1984)

History studies in schools and universities often seem to amount to little more than learning about events, battles, documents and personalities. H. G. Wells said that the “narrow history teaching” of our school days was mainly “an uninspiring and partially forgotten list of national kings or presidents.”

Yet, for thinking people, history should be a lantern to cast light on the pitfalls of the past and the present. It should give some hope for the future. Consider, now, some notable lessons from history and what mankind has failed to learn from them.

LESSON 1​​—Changes of government: As in the days of the French Revolution, the tendency is for like to succeed like, the “change” being more apparent than it is real. Thus, tyranny may well succeed tyranny. In Western democratic societies, like that of the United States or Great Britain, party succeeds party by election. But fundamental changes do not really occur.

Interestingly, noted writer Paul Valery observed: “All politicians have read history; but one might say that they read it only in order to learn from it how to repeat the same calamities all over again.” But why is this so? Basically because what the Bible says is true: “It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.”​—Jeremiah 10:23.

What is the lesson in this? “Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.” (Psalm 146:3) The promises of men are usually unreliable. Though they may conscientiously try, do not expect men to bring about a totally satisfying rule. Only Jehovah God can and will do that by means of his Kingdom with Jesus Christ as King.​—Matthew 6:9, 10; Isaiah 9:6, 7; Daniel 2:44.

LESSON 2​​—Religion in politics: History indicates that the priesthood of organized religion in any age, when wielding political clout over the populace, functions as a tool to maintain the status quo, often for the benefit of the ruling element. A case in point is the role played by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Europe and elsewhere in the perpetuation of the feudal system after the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century C.E. For a millennium or more, the Church in both West and East worked closely with kings, czars and lords to maintain the privileges and preserves of the few at the top of the social pyramid.

In return the Church was given land (the basis of power in the feudal system), and its members were addressed as “my lord Abbot” or “my lord Bishop.” The pope himself was, possibly, the most powerful monarch in Christendom. Such power can be seen in a list of papal prerogatives published by Pope Gregory VII in the 11th century. These included “the power to depose emperors” and to “annul the decrees of anyone.”

The rulers of ancient Babylon, Egypt, Aztec America, Hindu India​—indeed, perhaps all societies of the past—​have used the religious system to entrench their own interests. And for selfish advantage worldly religion has ever sought to promote close ties with the State. But what is the lesson in all of this? It is that when religion mixes with politics and becomes involved in the world and its political affairs, the masses suffer and confusion results. Such spiritual fornication contributes to its being disgusting to God. (Revelation 17:3-5) Moreover, from the Bible we learn that one requirement of God-approved worship is ‘keeping oneself without spot from the world.’​—James 1:27.

...

Why Did Jesus Not Get Involved in Politics?

Jesus requires his followers to have genuine love for one another and for the rest of mankind. Many individual Christians have fulfilled that condition during the centuries since Jesus walked the earth. But what about most of the religious organizations that have claimed to represent Christ? Has their history been marked by love? Certainly not. Instead, they have been in the forefront of countless wars and conflicts in which innocent blood has been spilled.​—Revelation 18:24.

That has been true right up to modern times. Nations claiming to be Christian took the lead in the slaughter that marked the two world wars of the 20th century. More recently, members of so-called Christian churches were in the forefront of the savage atrocities and attempted genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994. “Those who had turned against one another in this gory fashion,” writes former Anglican archbishop Desmond Tutu, “espoused the same faith. Most were Christian.” Regarding Christian neutrality, the New Catholic Encyclopedia asserts: “Conscientious objection is morally indefensible.” An article in the Reformierte Presse states that a report by African Rights, a human rights organization, on the 1994 Rwandan genocide established the participation of all churches, “with the exception of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

Religious leaders have completely departed from Jesus’ command to stay neutral in political affairs. In Jesus’ day, Galilee “was the heartland of ethnic nationalism,” states writer Trevor Morrow. Many Jewish patriots took up arms to gain political and religious freedom. Did Jesus tell his disciples to get involved in such struggles? No. On the contrary, he told them: “You are no part of the world.” (John 15:19; 17:14) Instead of remaining neutral, however, church leaders developed what Irish writer Hubert Butler describes as “militant and political ecclesiasticism.” “Political Christianity,” he writes, “is almost always also militarist Christianity and when statesmen and ecclesiastics come to terms it always happens that, in return for certain privileges, the Church gives its blessing to the military forces of the state.” Nowhere was this better illustrated than in Nazi Germany, whose citizens at the beginning of World War II claimed to be 94.4 percent Christian. Of all places, Germany​—birthplace of Protestantism and praised in 1914 by Pope Pius X as home of “the best Catholics in the world”—​should have represented the very best that Christendom had to offer. The part Christendom played in both world wars led to a severe loss of prestige. As the Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Mission explains: “Non-Christians had before their eyes . . . the evident fact that nations with a thousand years of Christian teaching behind them had failed to control their passions and had set the whole world ablaze for the satisfaction of less than admirable ambitions.” Of course, religiously motivated wars are nothing new. But in contrast with the past when nations of different religions warred with one another, the 20th century has increasingly found nations of the same religion locked in bitter conflict. The god of nationalism has clearly been able to manipulate the gods of religion. Thus, during World War II, while Catholics and Protestants in Great Britain and the United States were killing Catholics and Protestants in Italy and Germany, Buddhists in Japan were doing the same to their Buddhist brothers in southeast Asia. By advocating, supporting, and at times electing imperfect human governments, professed Christians and non-Christians alike must share responsibility for the blood these governments have shed. But what kind of religion would put government above God and offer its own members as political sacrifices on the altar of the god of war?

What Obstructs Universal Brotherhood? (Awake!—1981)

...

Nationalism

...

Too, as the story of the chapel in Scotland shows, nationalism and religion often go together. Wrote Dr. Robert L. Kahn, a rabbi: “Religion and Nationalism always tend to go hand in hand. In times of war, particularly, . . . ‘For God and Country’ becomes a sort of battle cry. This has always been so. [In World War II] one of the popular songs was the war-whoop of a chaplain, ‘Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.”’

...

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* [“We do not wage warfare.” Lit., “we are not doing military service.” ...; Lat., non . . . mi·li·ta'mus.] according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God;” (2 Cor 10:3-5)

“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, 1947, p. 333) “It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight; . . . up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.” (The Early Church and the World, by C. J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276) “In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity.” (A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382) “The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.” (Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125) “The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.” (The New World’s Foundations in the Old, by R. and W. M. West, 1929, p. 131) “The Christians . . . shrank from public office and military service.” (Editorial introduction to “Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177,” in The Great Events by Famous Historians, edited by R. Johnson, 1905, Vol. III, p. 246) “While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Vol. I, p. 416.