A Christian’s Case Against Exemptions to Vaccine Mandates

[BigDaddy4]

Interesting objections to vaccines and mandates by Christians. I guess I read Romans 13 a little differently...

 

[Hazelelponi]

The action of what?

The action of blind obedience in order to continue being a functioning member of society...

In Deuteronomy we find these words: YHWH ‘elohenu YHWH ekhad. It's only 4 words, the Hebrews didn't have the verb "is"; is, is implied through the placement of words.

The placement of words here isn't a declaration of God's essence (as in: "God is one") as Muslims think but rather, it's a declaration that Israel's allegiance has to be to God alone: "The Lord our God alone is our God".

This became my pledge when I was reconciled to God through Christ, the seal of which was given in God's own Holy Spirit at that time.

This means I can make no other pledge above that one and if I do, it nullifies the first pledge, making it of no account.

The sign that you pledge your allegiance to the state - worldwide - is now the COVID vaccine. No longer is it about healthcare (if it was they would have treated it like a healthcare decision that your free to consider) they made it into a sign of your allegiance to the state that without, your rights as a citizen can be taken away, everything from employment to travel can all be wiped away.

My citizenship isn't here on earth, if it was, I would take it. My allegiance to God is more, and I'll take no other sign.

For the first time in U.S. history people are saying "no... God isn't allowed a higher place in your heart than obedience to the state." and to that I say no, because He already has a higher place, and I'll allow no usurpers in the place that belongs to God alone.

 

[Sparagmos]

Works for me.

And that’s what matters, really, that it works for you, right?

 

[BNR32FAN]

You're incorrect in both cases. The vaccines do prevent people from contracting the virus. That's one of the main features of the COVID vaccines (or any vaccine). Now, it doesn't make you 100% immune to COVID. No vaccine offers that sort of protection. The fact is that the vast majority of new COVID cases are among the unvaccinated.

And all of this can be due to the fact that vaccinated people can be asymptotic and the CDC hasn’t told vaccinated people to get tested if they have come in contact with an infected person. With that being said they can’t know for certain what percentage of vaccinated people are infected and spreading the virus. That’s why they’ve changed their stance and are now requesting that vaccinated people get tested 3-5 days after coming in contact of an infected person. Right now their data is inconclusive to support your claims. You don’t have to have a breakthrough infection to spread the virus you can still be a carrier of it without having any symptoms.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The vaccine doesn’t stop people from contracting the virus nor does it stop them from spreading it to others. It only helps to lessen the effects of the virus when a person catches it. A vaccinated person can just as easily spread the virus to others. So the only person the vaccine helps to protect is the vaccinated person and unvaccinated people aren’t actually putting anyone else’s life at risk any more than a vaccinated person. What’s actually putting more people at risk is the vaccinated people who think they’re immune to it and can’t spread it to others so they think they don’t need to wear a mask or social distance anymore. I see it in grocery stores, convenient stores, restaurants, department stores, etc signs on the front door saying “You must wear a mask unless you have been fully vaccinated”. Now that the vaccine is out the kids at my daughter’s elementary school don’t have to wear masks anymore even though they aren’t eligible to get vaccinated because they’re too young. The vaccination is actually causing more harm than good by encouraging people to drop their guard by giving them a false sense of security. Now that we have the vaccine places like Six Flags and movie theaters don’t have to do temperature checks anymore for people entering. Virtual learning for my kids school, not an option this year thanks to the vaccine even though none of the kids in elementary school are old enough to get it. Don’t get me wrong the vaccine is a great idea but all the propaganda surrounding it is going to be detrimental to the spread of the virus. I see it so often here on CF where vaccinated people are constantly badgering the unvaccinated claiming that they’re putting other people at risk when the fact is that vaccinated are just as much of a risk for spreading covid as anyone else and with the false sense of security added into that factor they’re actually more of a risk to others because they think they’re safe.

There is a far worse pandemic than COVID and there is no cure. It's a pandemic of thoughtless, ignorant and downright stupid statements about vaccination that have zero basis in facts. No one claims that vaccines are 100% effective or 100% safe. But it's a better option than doing nothing. Vaccines are more effective and safer than doing nothing. Right now there are 100 people in hospital in Australia due to COVID. One of those people were fully vaccinated. The reason why they caught it still is not known. A bad batch? Insufficient dose? (That has happened) Dose was spoiled because inadequate refrigeration? No one knows or if they do, they are not saying.

The anti vaxxer hysteria is far more damaging than pro vaxxers encouraging people to get the jab. Christian anti vaxxers give the reasonable and rational a bad name. To vaccinate or not is an individual choice. It would be nice if the decision could be made objectively and without the "it's the mark of the beast" hysteria that some Christians promote. I'm fine because I am able to research objectively and draw my own conclusions. I'm concerned for those who get needlessly influenced by the hysteria and end up making a decision without knowing all the facts.

 

[Aussie Pete]

This post is so far fetched, especially coming from a conservative Christian. Submission to authority is central to the traditional world view of conservative Christians, who also have a history of using government authority to force their morality on the populous. Gay marriage should be illegal but employers should not be able to mandate vaccines?

The problem with the idea of gay marriage is that it is an oxymoron. God states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. End of story.

Christians have no right to tell the fallen world how to live. All Christians can do is preach the gospel and live in a manner worthy of our faith. The idea of a "Christian" country is no longer applicable, if it ever was.

 

[topher694]

"This" meant agreement with your statement.

Yeah, I appreciate that ... but you also caught a spelling error/omission, and I hate it when I do that, so I had to go fix it... lol.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Vaccines are more effective and safer than doing nothing.

As far as for protecting yourself yes, as far as preventing the spread, no. It does not stop a person from spreading it or getting it. It only reduces or eliminates the symptoms. Having antibodies doesn’t mean that the virus cannot get into your system it only means that your body is able to fight it once it does. If the virus is in your system your just as able to spread it as anyone else vaccinated or not. The vaccine does not stop the virus from getting into your system and it does not stop you from being able to infect someone else. Every single person who has been vaccinated can eat an apple with the COVID virus in it and every single one of them will have the COVID virus in their system and be a carrier of the virus able to spread it to others until the antibodies eliminate the virus. It takes days for the virus to be eliminated from the body, it doesn’t automatically kill the virus on contact. As far as the Bill Gates cyber tracking bologna or the number of the beast mumbo jumbo yeah I’m right with ya on that. It’s a bunch of garbage that I don’t buy into nor do I promote it.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

And that’s what matters, really, that it works for you, right?

Works for MOST, for society at large...IMO.

End of item. (Because...off topic)

 

[Blade]

NYT by a former Pastor.. does speak allot. I my self would not use that as a reason not to get the vaccine. Oh.. and Rom 13 was not, is not about getting the vaccine or not. We have the ..really? We have the GOV we have States. So the GOV can not force everyone in the USA to get the vaccine..they are not doing this. No one in my state is doing this nor any stores blah blah blah. You want to bow the worlds power GOV go ahead. You body is not the GOV property never was. Yet at a federal level, the vaccine mandate question is more complicated. Fed gov can.. a few cases we can quote yet states could block all that. One thing when over 30% were dying. Covid its NOTHING at all like that. The media has lied so many times and people just take it as gospel. That horse med people were taking? Hospital over run? Maddow still has some tweet I think up. That Hospital said something.. seems it was not true. Media never said a word as in retracting that story.

Strange well in other countries seems SOME have a higher rate of people in the hospital that are vaccinated vs none vaccinated. Now again I looked just now before I posted this. I did google guess what I never found vs another search engine and did find. Oh death rated higher in some of those hospitals with vaccinated. "Hospitals are pretty much full of people that have been vaccinated then returning to the hospitals due to that vaccination. Nurse said" On and on.

Lets not get so silly (nice word) about this. Really? We know more unvaccinated vs vaccinated are sick yet.. again ANOTHER video I saw a few weeks ago nurse in the hospital asking for prayer since the only ones in the ICU were vaccinated..her words. Truth is that vaccine can help most yet there can be side effects and really bad side effects and some can still get covid which will be mild vs others that will have to go to the hospital. The famous DOC thats a hero now he said you can get the vaccine and still spread covid and not know it. Or are we cheery picking his words?

So Isa 53 5 Psa 91 on and on.. yes I KNOW why my God came and died for and I know His promises are true... been that way for what 45 years now.. me being 60. I stand on His word not what I see and hear and feel. Countless stories of how GOD has healed...just talking covid. As Peter and John said.. its FAITH in that name. Will He find faith when He returns.... if I have offended forgive me

 

[Belk]

As far as for protecting yourself yes, as far as preventing the spread, no. It does not stop a person from spreading it or getting it. It only reduces or eliminates the symptoms. Having antibodies doesn’t mean that the virus cannot get into your system it only means that your body is able to fight it once it does. If the virus is in your system your just as able to spread it as anyone else vaccinated or not. The vaccine does not stop the virus from getting into your system and it does not stop you from being able to infect someone else. Every single person who has been vaccinated can eat an apple with the COVID virus in it and every single one of them will have the COVID virus in their system and be a carrier of the virus able to spread it to others until the antibodies eliminate the virus. It takes days for the virus to be eliminated from the body, it doesn’t automatically kill the virus on contact. As far as the Bill Gates cyber tracking bologna or the number of the beast mumbo jumbo yeah I’m right with ya on that. It’s a bunch of garbage that I don’t buy into nor do I promote it.

Studies show that vaccines reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by more than 80%, but the Delta variant is creating fresh uncertainty.

COVID vaccines slash viral spread – but Delta is an unknown

 

[dogs4thewin]

As far as for protecting yourself yes, as far as preventing the spread, no. It does not stop a person from spreading it or getting it. It only reduces or eliminates the symptoms. Having antibodies doesn’t mean that the virus cannot get into your system it only means that your body is able to fight it once it does. If the virus is in your system your just as able to spread it as anyone else vaccinated or not. The vaccine does not stop the virus from getting into your system and it does not stop you from being able to infect someone else. Every single person who has been vaccinated can eat an apple with the COVID virus in it and every single one of them will have the COVID virus in their system and be a carrier of the virus able to spread it to others until the antibodies eliminate the virus. It takes days for the virus to be eliminated from the body, it doesn’t automatically kill the virus on contact. As far as the Bill Gates cyber tracking bologna or the number of the beast mumbo jumbo yeah I’m right with ya on that. It’s a bunch of garbage that I don’t buy into nor do I promote it.

but if it keeps people from having serious issues then in a sense that does help everyone because since those people are less likely to end up in the hospital that means that those who are in the hospital ( for any reason) are likely to receive better care and that there will not be long wait times to be seen.

 

[Hazelelponi]

but if it keeps people from having serious issues then in a sense that does help everyone because since those people are less likely to end up in the hospital that means that those who are in the hospital ( for any reason) are likely to receive better care and that there will not be long wait times to be seen.

When is the fact it "may" prevent some people from receiving medical care a reason for anything to be government mandated?

Usually vaccines are taken to eradicate disease, this vaccine appears to eradicate nothing, at best it's about as effective as a flu shot, and those, while recommended especially for people in high risk groups, aren't mandatory and they don't require striking down people's freedom of religion in order to forcibly vaccinate as many as possible.

And that's what has people freaked out...

 

[chevyontheriver]

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

Had I been drafted, I would have asked for a conscience objection to fighting in Vietnam. Or for anything involving nuclear weapons. I do not object to any and all military service though. Alas I wasn't drafted. A few years later I went into the Peace Corps because I do believe in national service.

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."

We differ. You might explore the difference between an act and declining to act. They are not the same. One can choose to act and be involved in a remote evil. Or one can decide not to participate. Not participating in such an act does not mean one acts to get sick, or acts to spread disease, or acts to harm another person.

A religious exemption would be an exemption based on religious beliefs.

Not very helpful. You made the distinction between religious and personal without even mentioning moral.

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.

A person should be consistent. Being against a particular Covid vaccine but not against other medicines involving abortion derived fetal cell lines (whatever those medications might be) would be inconsistent. But we have no evidence of any Catholic who would not be consistent on this presuming they knew the score. Likewise, an awareness of other evils involved in medicine (maybe a transplanted organ obtained from someone euthanized) would likely spur a Catholic to reject that as well. But I simply don't accept your claim that not getting vaccinated is an act. Nor that not getting vaccinated is an evil act, no matter how remote. That's just not how I learned my moral theology.

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.

The number of objectors should give pause to others to examine whether they are indeed acting morally or perhaps immorally. And there will be those who choose prison time instead of complying with a mandate that violates their conscience. I know someone who did this instead of going to Vietnam. I could respect that. I didn't have to do that. My mother had plans, I later found out, to get me to Canada. But the war wound down first.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That’s the problem with this particular objection. If a person says they object to using the vaccine on the grounds that fetuses were used somewhere in the development then they would need to show that they attempted in the past to learn which other medicines fall into that category. And why hasn’t the church taken initiative on that? The church could have done the research and published the list of medicines. Also, that person could be doing that right now. If they aren’t, I don’t believe that is really their reason.

You are demanding omniscience of individual Catholics and of the Catholic Church. And questioning their motives if they are not omniscient.

I am trying to find out which medicines do use abortion derived fetal cell lines. It's not easy. I am getting the impression that it's crazy common though, and it may be difficult to navigate rational care without remote cooperation with evil. You would think that it would be possible to find moral choices for at least the common meds. At this point I don't know. Previously I was unaware of this being a big problem for serious Catholics.

 

[Strathos]

Why do people keep falling for the all-or-nothing fallacy?

Yes, you can get COVID even if you have had the vaccine. And you can spread it.

But the chances of either are both dramatically reduced by the vaccine. And the symptoms will be much less severe, and the chance of death or permanent damage also much less.

People have died in car accidents despite wearing seatbelts. That doesn't make seatbelts useless either.

 

[Sparagmos]

You are demanding omniscience of individual Catholics and of the Catholic Church. And questioning their motives if they are not omniscient.

omniscient? I said they should have attempted to research it. And the Vatican certainly has the means to do that research.

I am trying to find out which medicines do use abortion derived fetal cell lines. It's not easy. I am getting the impression that it's crazy common though, and it may be difficult to navigate rational care without remote cooperation with evil. You would think that it would be possible to find moral choices for at least the common meds. At this point I don't know. Previously I was unaware of this being a big problem for serious Catholics.

. In a few minutes with google , I learned that fetal cells were used in the development of vaccines against rubella, chicken pox, shingles, and hepatitis A, and to develop medicine for Parkinson’s, rheumatoid arthritis, hemophilia, and cystic fibrosis. Fetal cells have also been used for cancer research.

I think your attempt to learn about this is an example of what people who genuinely want to know will do. If a person has a deeply held belief that they should not use medicine developed with fetal cells, then they absolutely would have attempted to find out what medicine is involved, full stop.

 

[hedrick]

I don’t think the OP deals with the way courts handle religion. Arguing that Christianity actually doesn’t oppose vaccination is probably not relevant, because the courts don’t make doctrinal judgements. If some evangelicals find that their faith doesn’t let them use medicine, the courts won’t argue whether evangelicalism actually does or doesn’t actually hold that.

Rather, there are balancing tests, that look at how serious the effect of the exemption is, and how seriously the requirement interferes with religious practice. And there is a question whether the rule should be handled by strict scrutiny or not. I won’t go further, because the specifics are complex, I’m not a lawyer, and the current court may even see them slightly differently than past courts. But the whole setup is designed to avoid having the court decide whether your objection is actually justified according to your religion. Consult a constitutional lawyer.

 

[chevyontheriver]

omniscient? I said they should have attempted to research it. And the Vatican certainly has the means to do that research.

It's a relatively new phenomenon, so I'm actually impressed that the moral status of the Covid vaccines are (relatively) known. Who would have even thunk that aspirin would have a similar moral involvement? Not sure what brands of aspirin though.

I think it's a growing story not quite mature. When it matures I suspect there will be lots of Catholics pushing for Catholic hospitals to use only moral medicines and Catholic medical schools to develop moral medicines. We do have enough economic power in the health care area that we should be able to do it. Frankly, we have enough economic power in the health care area that we should have always had it.

 

[tstor]

Had I been drafted, I would have asked for a conscience objection to fighting in Vietnam. Or for anything involving nuclear weapons. I do not object to any and all military service though. Alas I wasn't drafted. A few years later I went into the Peace Corps because I do believe in national service.

I'm not sure what this is an answer to.

We differ. You might explore the difference between an act and declining to act. They are not the same. One can choose to act and be involved in a remote evil. Or one can decide not to participate. Not participating in such an act does not mean one acts to get sick, or acts to spread disease, or acts to harm another person.

They aren't always the same. Not acting to protect those persecuted is to engage in a remote moral evil. No one thinks it's morally neutral to not save someone when you have the opportunity. Likewise, it isn't morally neutral to refuse a safe and effective vaccine when that refusal puts others at risk. If that isn't a remote moral evil, then the phrase appears to lack any sort of meaning.

Not very helpful. You made the distinction between religious and personal without even mentioning moral.

Religious beliefs may or may not have to do with morality. For example, it might be a sincerely held religious belief that I pray at certain times throughout the day, e.g., if I were a Muslim. That has little to do with moral beliefs. Of course, some religious beliefs do deal with morality. I was stating that the ambiguity and arbitrariness of the "remote moral evil" argument results in a personal exception, not a religious one. An individual Catholic who decides to disregard their Pope and their bishops, i.e., their religious authorities, in their vaccine hesitancy is making a personal decision. That wouldn't be grounds for a religious exception; it would be a personal exception.

A person should be consistent. Being against a particular Covid vaccine but not against other medicines involving abortion derived fetal cell lines (whatever those medications might be) would be inconsistent. But we have no evidence of any Catholic who would not be consistent on this presuming they knew the score. Likewise, an awareness of other evils involved in medicine (maybe a transplanted organ obtained from someone euthanized) would likely spur a Catholic to reject that as well. But I simply don't accept your claim that not getting vaccinated is an act. Nor that not getting vaccinated is an evil act, no matter how remote. That's just not how I learned my moral theology.

"no matter how remote"

So what levels of remoteness do you find worthy of consideration? Why? Is it an arbitrary and personal decision on your part?

The number of objectors should give pause to others to examine whether they are indeed acting morally or perhaps immorally. And there will be those who choose prison time instead of complying with a mandate that violates their conscience. I know someone who did this instead of going to Vietnam. I could respect that. I didn't have to do that. My mother had plans, I later found out, to get me to Canada. But the war wound down first.

If a Catholic wants to go to jail instead of complying with a vaccine mandate, so be it. Just rewards.