A Christian’s Case Against Exemptions to Vaccine Mandates

[tstor]

How so? I live in a rural county here in GA and anyone 16+ can get a vaccine at the health department. I do not know if 12-15 can simply because I do not know if they still have the particular vaccine approved for them, but if they do anyone 12+ can get a vaccine in this rural county.

I mean that certain regions of the country have more cases of vaccine hesitancy. Access really isn't an issue anymore.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I mean that certain regions of the country have more cases of vaccine hesitancy. Access really isn't an issue anymore.

so then it is a want to issue and not an access issue.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Right. The issue is that your standard of “morally tainted” appears to be entirely arbitrary and, frankly, too broad. Some of your tax money goes to research and development that uses fetal cells. Do the same Catholics who want religious exemptions for vaccination also want religious exemptions for taxation? If not, why not?

Probably. I object to a lot of things government does. I vote accordingly, powerless to do much more than that.

Many of the products sold in stores are researched, developed, tested, and even produced in morally dubious ways. Do the Catholics who’re seeking a religious exemption for the vaccination because of “remote moral evils” show consistent concern for all remote moral evils? If not, why not?

First, a person needs to know which products are produced in morally dubious ways. Not always included on the labels with the list of ingredients. Often difficult to even find out which products those are. I expect Catholics will want to be consistent when they find out what's what.

Further, this business of a “remote moral evil” would appear to work both ways. A Catholic who refuses to get a medically tested and safe vaccine for a highly infectious and deadly disease is objectively putting others at risk. Is that not a remote moral evil? If not, why not? Does one outweigh the other? Does it come down to individual conscience?

Taking a vaccine is a deliberate act in a way not taking a vaccine and then getting sick and then infecting someone else who might die from the disease is not. Getting sick is usually not willed. Infecting someone else is usually not willed. Someone else dying of a disease is usually not willed. So the difference is willing to be involved in a remote evil OR not willing to get sick or infect someone else or see them die. There are many ways to protect yourself from disease, from spreading disease, or to protect someone else from disease or death. Not all of them demand participation in a remote moral evil.

If so, it would appear to be less of a religious exemption and more of a personal exemption.

You might want to clarify your views on the differences among 'religious exemption', 'moral exemption', and 'personal exemption'.

 

[tstor]

so then it is a want to issue and not an access issue.

Absolutely. Hence why mandates are having to be discussed.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Absolutely. Hence why mandates are having to be discussed.

I took the quoted post as saying it was an access issue whereas a want to issue is quite different.

 

[chevyontheriver]

not really other than that I feel that wanting an exemption on grounds of religion (moral) is too open to abuse.

Do you think mandating vaccines for those with moral objections is at all open to abuse?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Do you think mandating vaccines for those with moral objections is at all open to abuse?

How so the thing with region and moral exemptions is that I can say I oppose it for those reasons and if anyone can say that then there may not be enough people who take the vaccine to keep whatever at bay ( whether it is co-vid or something else. On the other hand medical can be varified and as such punished if people/doctors are caught lying about it to get out of the vaccine.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Finally, you can't refuse to get a vaccine merely because you think a mandate is politically unsavory.

Ha! Wow, so that aside is my only reason? Did I not say it is not yet law, (and that if it does become law, I may even comply), and that the medical data numbers don't add up to a mandate?

The liberals have had their whack at it. And missed. It's our turn.

 

[tstor]

Probably. I object to a lot of things government does. I vote accordingly, powerless to do much more than that.

However, you don't seek exemption from a law. If there were to be a vaccine mandate, would you get vaccinated?

Taking a vaccine is a deliberate act in a way not taking a vaccine and then getting sick and then infecting someone else who might die from the disease is not. Getting sick is usually not willed. Infecting someone else is usually not willed. Someone else dying of a disease is usually not willed. So the difference is willing to be involved in a remote evil OR not willing to get sick or infect someone else or see them die. There are many ways to protect yourself from disease, from spreading disease, or to protect someone else from disease or death. Not all of them demand participation in a remote moral evil.

Both are deliberate acts. Access to the vaccine is readily available and free. Both the act of accepting and rejecting are deliberate when one is offered something freely. It would be the equivalent of a reprobate claiming that they can't be accused of anything for not accepting Christ. They could argue that their refusal wasn't a deliberate act. Further, there are broader consequences when people refuse to get vaccinated. Namely, they endanger others. Refusing a safe and effective vaccine against a highly infectious and deadly disease is a deliberate decision that has consequences. It is absolutely participation in a "remote moral evil."

You might want to clarify your views on the differences among 'religious exemption', 'moral exemption', and 'personal exemption'.

A religious exemption would be an exemption based on religious beliefs. The following is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

denying a requested reasonable accommodation of an applicant’s or employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof – if an accommodation will not impose more than a de minimis cost or burden on business operations

This is why I've been stressing consistency. A Catholic can't claim that their concerns about "remote moral evils" regarding vaccines are a sincerely held religious belief if they don't exercise the same level of concern for other remote moral evils. Further, it could be argued that the burden imposed by such religious exemptions are too great if the number of people seeking them are too high.

 

[tstor]

Ha! Wow, so that aside is my only reason? Did I not say it is not yet law, (and that if it does become law, I may even comply), and that the medical data numbers don't add up to a mandate?

The liberals have had their whack at it. And missed. It's our turn.

If it becomes law and you submit to getting the vaccine, then you wouldn't be getting a religious exemption. That's what this whole thread was about. You can oppose a mandate for political reasons, but that has little to do with the legitimacy of religious exemptions.

 

[Halbhh]

I thought this was an interesting guest essay published by The New York Times. I have provided some relevant excerpts (emphasis mine) for those who don’t have a subscription.

A Christian’s Case Against Exemptions to Vaccine Mandates
By Curtis Chang
Sept. 6, 2021​

Well, I don't think most here that are against mandates are trying to suggest they have a religious objection to the vaccine, which this article is addressing, but at least a more common one I've seen is a personal freedom type of argument. Just a 'don't coerce me' argument. (like post #8 above)

But, government can legitimately coerce about some things, of course, and the only question is whether or not this is one of those things.

Here's what the U.S. Supreme court said on the issue more than a century ago during a severe smallpox outbreak and vaccination mandate:

"...A few months later, Cambridge was in a full-fledged smallpox “panic” with the city ordering the closure of all schools, public libraries and churches to stem the spread of the disease. Police officers accompanied health officials like Spencer, who went door to door vaccinating as many as 100 people a day.

But while the Cambridge vaccine order was compulsory, it wasn’t a “forced” vaccination. People like Jacobson who refused to get vaccinated faced a $5 fine, the equivalent of nearly $150 today. On July 17, 1902, Dr. Spencer issued a criminal complaint against Jacobson and other anti-vaccine activists to collect that $5 fine.

READ MORE: 4 Diseases You've Probably Forgotten About Thanks to Vaccines

Jacobson Goes to Court Amid Anti-Vaccination Uproar
The broader battle over the validity of vaccination science reached a fever pitch during the smallpox outbreak. Anti-vaccination groups, citing alleged cases of death and deformity from bad reactions to smallpox vaccine, called compulsory vaccination “the greatest crime of the age,” ....
When the Supreme Court Ruled a Vaccine Could Be Mandatory

Here, our modern vaccines today against Covid are comparatively extremely safe, and cause vastly less suffering than getting Covid unvaccinated causes, by orders of magnitude.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

He's wrong at least about Catholics. Catholics have a responsibility to form their consciences and then Catholics must follow their consciences. That means some Catholics may have an objection to going to war (any war or only a particular war) or may have an objection to a particular medical treatment. We do not have to follow in lockstep with the pope or with our bishop.

We have pope Francis, going beyond his authority in demanding we all be vaccinated. We have some bishops who will write letters of approval for conscience based objection, others who will refuse to do so, and others who say that while such objections are valid, they do not need any ecclesial letter to be valid.

Catholic objection is typically of a different sort than other Christians might object. Others might fear a vaccination for a variety of reasons. Or dislike the government. For Catholics the bigger sticking point is the remote cooperation with evil in that some vaccines use cell lines from aborted babies in the development process for their vaccine. Most use cell lines from aborted babies in the testing process for their vaccine. This IS a moral evil, yet it is a remote moral evil. Catholic moral teaching allows for a reluctant participation in a remote moral evil yet also allows for resistance to participation in any moral evil no matter how remote. It is a matter of conscience. Not all Catholics need to be in lockstep in fulfilling the dictates of their consciences. Catholics may not participate in proximate moral evil at all. They can choose about remote moral evil based on their own situation and calling.

Catholic conscience objectors to war have been recognized by the government since Vietnam, even while not all Catholics would be objectors. It should be the same now. If a Catholic does not want to participate in remote moral evil it should not be forced because it is forcing someone to violate their conscience to participate in evil.

Perhaps new vaccines will soon be developed which are not morally problematic and then the up to now resistant Catholics will flock to get those morally untainted vaccines. But for now there is a case for some Catholics to be granted a moral objection status to particular Covid vaccines (and any other medicines that may be developed or tested using cell lines derived from aborted babies).

So you believe the actual vicar of Christ is wrong? Wow

 

[Hazelelponi]

Yeah a paywall for an article that I can almost guess what the content will be....

Anything that demands total submission without exception, is demanding worship. That is my view of what it means to worship according to Scripture.

I submit to God, therefore I, in body and spirit, worship God, with my thoughts/mind, with my actions, and with my heart.

The government is right now demanding my worship, in ways not even God asks of us.

They are asking we consider not the facts as we know them; they ask that we don't consider the future; they ask we don't consider our personal circumstances, our health, and evaluate risk versus reward. They demand only blind obedience and are moving to punish all who do not give it.

I couldn't worship God if that was what God demanded of me so how can I take a vaccine into my body, a temple of the living God, according to that level of blind unthinking obedience?

Any person or any government that demands it of me is evil and under such conditions it becomes a sin for me.

Informed consent, given all the facts without outside coercion is the only way i am able to even consider taking any vaccine. By demanding I give a government what God never demanded I give HIM, is asking what I cannot give because they are asking my worship.

I questioned God, put God under a microscope and asked God to prove Himself God before I would submit to His authority. Apparently we aren't being allowed the same level of scepticism with this vaccine.

If this vaccine is the best thing since sliced bread, it'll bear itself out under scrutiny and need never be forced. If not, then it's an evil being perpetuated on innocent people, which I cannot abide.

 

[Belk]

Anything that demands total submission without exception, is demanding worship. That is my view of what it means to worship according to Scripture.

I submit to God, therefore I, in body and spirit, worship God, with my thoughts/mind, with my actions, and with my heart.

The government is right now demanding my worship, in ways not even God asks of us.

They are asking we consider not the facts as we know them; they ask that we don't consider the future; they ask we don't consider our personal circumstances, our health, and evaluate risk versus reward. They demand only blind obedience and are moving to punish all who do not give it.

I couldn't worship God if that was what God demanded of me so how can I take a vaccine into my body, a temple of the living God, according to that level of blind unthinking obedience?

Any person or any government that demands it of me is evil and under such conditions it becomes a sin for me.

Informed consent, given all the facts without outside coercion is the only way i am able to even consider taking any vaccine. By demanding I give a government what God never demanded I give HIM, is asking what I cannot give because they are asking my worship.

I questioned God, put God under a microscope and asked God to prove Himself God before I would submit to His authority. Apparently we aren't being allowed the same level of scepticism with this vaccine.

If this vaccine is the best thing since sliced bread, it'll bear itself out under scrutiny and need never be forced. If not, then it's an evil being perpetuated on innocent people, which I cannot abide.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

The numbers are suggesting that the vaccine offers protection it seems to me that NOT having the vaccine is more dangerous. In fact if you look at two of my recent threads you will see just how strongly I feel about the vaccine.

Yes, I’ve read them both. I (and @Mark Quayle, if I understand him correctly above) are concerned about what’s riding on the back of this pandemic. The effects of that will be far more horrific than the death tally from Covid, IMO.

 

[tstor]

Anything that demands total submission without exception, is demanding worship. [...] The government is right now demanding my worship, in ways not even God asks of us.

Unless you're an anarchist, this doesn’t really make any sense.

They are asking we consider not the facts as we know them; they ask that we don't consider the future; they ask we don't consider our personal circumstances, our health, and evaluate risk versus reward. They demand only blind obedience and are moving to punish all who do not give it.

What facts are you referring to? Here are some facts:
"Studies show that vaccines reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by more than 80%, but the Delta variant is creating fresh uncertainty."
"Experts say the number of unvaccinated people in the United States is a key reason coronavirus variants are emerging."
"COVID-19 vaccinations significantly reduce the risk of severe illness and death from the virus."
"The vast majority of people who have died from COVID-19 were unvaccinated. Fatal cases of COVID-19 among vaccinated people are either very low or virtually zero in 48 states."

Those who are pushing for vaccinations are extremely concerned about the future. The goal is to make COVID a worry of the past. No one is asking that you don't consider your own person circumstances, health, etc. If you have a valid medical reason for not getting vaccinated, then don't. The number of valid reasons for not getting vaccinated are slim. The vaccines have been tested extensively and are proven to be safe for use. As the CDC has noted, "millions of people in the United States have received COVID-19 vaccines under the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history." The vaccines have been shown to be highly effective against the virus. Not getting the vaccine without a valid reason doesn't constitute careful consideration of your own personal circumstances, health, or risk/reward analysis.

Finally, no one is demanding blind obedience. The information and data about the vaccines and COVID are publicly available.

Informed consent, given all the facts without outside coercion is the only way i am able to even consider taking any vaccine.

Then you should be getting the vaccine.

If this vaccine is the best thing since sliced bread, it'll bear itself out under scrutiny...

It already has.
"The coordinated and rapid COVID-19 vaccination campaign launched in the United States late last year has saved some 279,000 lives and prevented 1.25 million hospitalizations, a new study led by the Yale School of Public Health (YSPH) finds."

 

[topher694]

Biblically based arguments against vaccination have been rebutted. The project Christians and the Vaccine, which I helped to found, has created numerous explainer videos in an effort to refute attempts by anti-vax Christians to hijack pro-life values, to distort biblical references like the “mark of the beast” and to inflame fears about government control. Christians who request religious exemptions rarely even try to offer substantive biblical and theological reasoning. Rather, the drivers for evangelical resistance are nonreligious and are rooted in deep-seated suspicion of government and vulnerability to misinformation.

This is baloney. He may have rebutted it to his satisfaction but that doesn't make it so. It's no different that cessationists claiming they've rebutted the gifts of the Spirit continuing, OR continualists claiming they've rebutted cessationism. It doesn't matter which side you fall on clearly a whole lot of people, who know the word quite well, aren't buying it.

 

[Halbhh]

This is baloney. He may have rebutted it to his satisfaction but that doesn't make it so. It's no different that cessationists claiming they've rebutted the gifts of the Spirit continuing, OR continualists claiming they've rebutted cessationism. Doesn't matter side you fall on clearly a whole lot of people, who know the word quite well, aren't buying it.

Friendly question: where is any scripture against vaccination or other physical precautions (which could be interpreted to include vaccines)?

 

[Belk]

This is baloney. He may have rebutted it to his satisfaction but that doesn't make it so. It's no different that cessationists claiming they've rebutted the gifts of the Spirit continuing, OR continualists claiming they've rebutted cessationism. Doesn't matter side you fall on clearly a whole lot of people, who know the word quite well, aren't buying it.

Very well, where is the break down in his rebuttal?