To Mask or Not To Mask, that is NOT the Question.

To mask or not to mask, that is not the question.  The question is, shall we accept being forced to be masked, separated and restricted?  Shall we surrender our first amendment rights in the name of 'love' or 'obedience'.  For those that need a refresher, the framers of the US Constitution had drafted the new laws of the land and were shopping it around, looking for leaders in the colonies to ratify it.  But, as circumstances would have it, many of those that would need to sign off were wary of government overreach, having just buried their wives, sons, husbands and daughters in the course of throwing off the shackles of their last leaders.  In their efforts to avoid the dreaded 'rebound' relationship, where anything was better than that abusive jerk you just left so you might choose to overlook the possibility that this new suitor may also snore, have bad breath or tax you without representation, those colonial leaders demanded a written guarantee that this was not just round two of 'The Chronicles of Do As You Are Told and Don't Question it.  

And where did they start?  They started by saying:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the rights of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

They knew that in order for a people to be free, those people had to be able to freely meet, freely worship, freely speak, freely report on what they were speaking and hearing, freely get together for covered dish fellowship or large peaceful protest and, lastly, to be heard by the folks they had willingly chosen to grant a little authority to should those folks be getting carried away.  And, to quote the 21st century philosopher, Dave Chappelle, "The First Amendment is first for a reason.  Second Amendment is just in case the first one doesn't work out."

So why are we now, some 230 years later, talking about this in the context of a cloth covering for your face?  Glad you asked.  Let me tell you.  Humans have this fantastic ability to group themselves into the "us" and the "them".  It's more than a great Pink Floyd song.  Cain and Abel are not famous for their picnic skills.  They are famous for one killing the other.  Human history is not, largely, a study of what each culture was great at, unless of course they were great at chariot warfare, the phalanx, higher rates of reload or superior satellite guided missiles and bombs.  Humans are fantastic at finding reasons to be suspicious of each other.  Be it the way they wear their bone fragments in their hair after the tribal battle or how and if they wear a mask when on the bus.  Once any group becomes 'the other', a subtle and automatic transformation begins.  They become 'less than'; less intelligent, less loving, less patriotic and less worthy of respect.  Once that happens, it takes only a provocation to get us back to what we do best, attacking 'the other'.  We need not look far to see this playing out.  Just walk into a Walmart without a mask or, heaven forbid, try to attend your sons highschool football game in Ohio.  You better bring wear lots of layers.  That makes it harder for the Taser prongs to stick into your flesh.  

You can hear it clearly in the words of a leading politician this week as he jockeyed for position at the head of the table.  "If I can say something here, this is not about freedom, it's about patriotism.  You wear a mask to protect the person next to you.  You wear a mask to protect the bus driver.  You wear a mask to protect the person you're sitting next to on the bus.  To reject the chance to the easiest possible thing to save lives, I find it appalling.  I promise you that my Department of Transportation (DOT) will insist on it..."

Did you catch that?  It's not freedom, it's patriotism.  The implication being that if you choose not to wear a mask, you do not love your country.  It's about protecting the person next to you, the person doing their job.  If you don't do that, you don't love them.  If you reject doing this 'easiest possible thing to save lives', you are appalling in the eyes of the man that wants to lead the nation.  And, rest assured, the appalling ones will be made to heel should he be elected.  So, that is why we are talking about this little piece of fabric 230 years later.  When ever a politician leads with 'this is not about ____', then whatever they are denying the importance of is certainly what it is all about.  How do we know this is certainly about freedom?

Consider every single aspect of American society has been altered in the past 8 months.  Businesses, schools, churches, your ability to walk into a store, you ability to walk on the sidewalk, all of it has been restricted by the government.  One might equate that with your freedoms have been restricted.  Don't believe me?  Think those are just suggestions that they would like you to consider?  Then consider the churches in California or the Synagogues in New York facing massive fines or threat of closure for participating in the 'free exercise' of their religion that was promised not to be infringed upon.  Or the businesses that are closed, many forever.  Consider that there is now an entire generation of students that have been trained to allow an authority figure to point a gun shaped device at their heads to determine if they are 'safe' to enter a public building.  Consider that students are being taught to sit silently while eating their meals while ensuring they are 6 feet apart for their peers. 

As a man that worked his way through college by tending inmates in a state prison, I can assure you that those behaviors listed above are absolutely issues of freedom.  By restricting the freedom to assemble and the freedom to worship, they are attempting to neuter any that might disagree with them.  By shuttering the businesses, they are attempting to neuter those that would prefer to care for and provide for themselves.  By teaching the young to comply without question, they are neutering the future.  And a neutered future is a one that will not be a problem.  They will not even notice that their First Amendment is gone.  It's the war that was won without firing a shot.  Americans are willing slipping the shackles on their own hands in the name of safety...from a disease with a 99.9+ survival rate.

Our forefathers stood against the strongest military and economic force of their day.  They fought in their fields and in their forests.  They bled and died with musket shot and bayoneted holes in their bodies.  And we, their successors, are laying down when faced with a survival rate of 99.9+%.  A nation gets the leader she deserves.  If the American voters can be convinced that a complete abdication of their rights in the name of safety is a worthy quest, then they will have earned their chains.  

We will know in less than 30 days.  One need not be a person of faith to have a problem with American's being told they cannot meet freely to worship.  They simply need to be a person that understand how quickly the erosion of freedom affects us all.  For fear of sounding dramatic, the question must be asked.  If many are already facing arrest, fines and the loss of their livelihood over not wearing a piece of fabric to protect from something with a 99.9+% survival rate, exactly how far is the jump from a potential leader of America saying those who question the edict are 'appalling' and the repeat of so many pages of world history where tyranny reigns, blood is spilled and generations are lost?

I ask not because I want bloodshed.  I ask because I want freedom.  I ask not because I hate any politician.  I ask because I fear the one who entices with eloquent words whilst concealing a club (or an unhinged mob) behind his back.  I ask not because I want people to contract this virus.  I ask because I want folks to consider what a 99.9+ survival rate is costing us as a nation.  I ask not because I want the elderly or those with pre-existing conditions to die.  I ask because I understand that the elderly, by nature of them being older and closer to death, are much more likely to die anyway and at all times.  That's how being old works.  The same goes for those with pre-existing conditions.  It is not unloving to calmly embrace facts.  On the contrary.  It is unloving to attempt to manipulate the masses in the name of safety, while simultaneously threatening financial ruin, or worse yet, a boot across the throat to any that dare to question.  That, my friends, is absolutely about freedom.  That is absolutely what first amendment is about.  That, my friends, is what being a rational human being is about.

The question is not about masks.  The question is about being free and rational.  Here's to being free and rational.