Southern Seminary files petition against Biden Administration to Oppose OSHA Vaccination Rules

I guarantee the seminary already enforces multiple OSHA rules, which, by the standard implied above means they’ve been “coercive extensions of state power” for a very long time!

I would like a religious exemption against taxes. It is an over reach of government to forcefully withhold money from my paycheck to pay for activities and services that I feel are antithetical to the teachings of Scripture. The mandate to make institutions like Southern to be an extension of the government by actually withholding that money and then sending it to the federal government is an over reach. Whether we want to support specific federal programs should be one of conscience and not one in which we just hand over money unchecked to be sent on programs that we do not support.

Aaron, back in grad school, after I greeted a group of firemen going to address an arsine gas (three steps and you could be dead) leak in a semiconductor lab, I contacted OSHA to see if they would do anything to address the University of Colorado-Boulder’s lack of an automated fire/chemical alarm system. I was told that they did not have authority over universities.

So perhaps other mandates, but very likely, not OSHA. Yeah, I think it’s a mistake, too.

(yes, I was ticked, because the firefighters did NOT have the proper PPE to deal with that kind of thing because there was no communication between Boulder FD and the engineering school…..)

Mandating that employees recieve a particular medical procedure is not in the same category as requiring guard rails on scissor lifts. Or at least that’s what the 5th Circut Court seems to believe. This is an overreach of power and every American should be troubled by it, regardless of your feelings about the vaccine in general.

[Josh S]

Mandating that employees recieve a particular medical procedure is not in the same category as requiring guard rails on scissor lifts.

You could also look at it as the government is mandating a very narrow and specific safe procedure in order to protect the health and welfare of the nation. Of which a very small % of people are against. It could be a slippery slope, but I am not there yet. I don’t view this as the government testing its ability to begin mandating broad medical procedures to the whole country. Vaccine mandates have a well established history within the US going all the way back to the foundation of the country and the countries founders. In addition they are not mandating anyone to get a vaccine. You have the option to get a vaccine or

• Begin wearing a face mask by December 5, 2021 (most companies already have this in play)
• Begin getting weekly testing starting January 4, 2022 (if they are in the workplace)

In addition, the President and OSHA are not an absolute monarchy or a tyranny as many Christians would have you to believe. They still operate within a democratically elected republic. Which means that this emergency temporary standard needs to be evaluated by the courts to determine if it is legal and constitutionally viable. Until that is done, it is only something on paper at this point.

So while “over reach of power” sounds great in taglines and from Sean Hannity on Fox, or your favorite meme on the internet. It isn’t an over reach of power, since at this time it hasn’t even been evaluated by the courts. If the courts, including the Supreme Court, deem it to be legal, than it is still not an over reach, as three branches of government will have determined legally that it is within the confines of government to do this. You may think it is an over reach from an academic exercise. And that may rile people up personally, but then if enough people in our country feel that it is problematic than the people can change it.

So just to be clear, you have zero reservations about people you’re never met making medical decisions for you? The fact that they may have made a good medical decision on your behalf is incidental.

[Josh S]

So just to be clear, you have zero reservations about people you’re never met making medical decisions for you? The fact that they may have made a good medical decision on your behalf is incidental.

But people do not have to get the vaccine. They have the option to get weekly testing instead. So people still have their medical choice (unless there are really people out there who would say that even testing infringes on their medical choice).

They have to pay for that testing out of their own pocket. It’s not a choice, it’s a fine for not obeying the medical decision that someone else made for them. The precident is still set. And precidents are hard to take back. That’s all I’m saying. And apparently, the 5th Circut has the same opinion.

[Josh S]

They have to pay for that testing out of their own pocket. It’s not a choice, it’s a fine for not obeying the medical decision that someone else made for them. The precident is still set. And precidents are hard to take back. That’s all I’m saying.

Still a choice. May not be the choice that you would like, but it is still a choice. Like I said before vaccine mandates have a very long history and they have been held up by courts, including the Supreme Court. This is not something “new”. Do I have any problem with the government require a very safe vaccine to be mandated to me to aid in public health? No. Do I think this is a precedent that will be set and cannot be taken back? It may be for the vaccine, but I don’t see this stretching into all kinds of medical decisions. In fact, the argument that you make above is the same exact argument that pro choice people are making around abortion laws. Why should the government dictate medical decisions around someone who wants an abortion. Not saying it justifies abortion, just saying that is the argument on the other side of the coin.

….and you can be unemployed. Pretty harsh penalty for refusing a vaccine where a Lancet article notes that it only reduces transmission of the disease by 35%. We are not talking about the 95-98% effectiveness that you see with polio, smallpox, and the like.

Reality here is that the Biden administration and Mr. Fauci are desperately trying to do something, anything, to cover up the fact that their record here is awful. To draw a picture, is it smart to do research with a country that’s killed 65 million of its own citizens, imposed forcible abortion, and currently has nukes pointed at us? To make matters worse, the obvious application of the knowledge gained can be used for bioweapons.

“Dumb” doesn’t even begin to cover the malpractice Fauci and the NIH have done with their gain of function research.

[Bert Perry]

….and you can be unemployed. Pretty harsh penalty for refusing a vaccine where a Lancet article notes that it only reduces transmission of the disease by 35%. We are not talking about the 95-98% effectiveness that you see with polio, smallpox, and the like.

Facts are that in reality very few people will not get the vaccine. Tyson foods is a great example. From their interview on NPR it was expected that only 1.5% of their 56,000 person workforce chose not to get the vaccine. Getting the vaccine was good business for Tyson. And they chose not to listen to 1.5% of their workforce. It is an interesting first example, of how this will play out. And to be honest, mandate or not, many large employers were already mandating this. In reality the Biden order has less affect than what many people think. And yes, companies have broad discretion to mandate vaccines.

https://www.axios.com/tyson-foods-workers-vaccine-company-mandate-46abf…

There’s a reason the 5th Circut has imposed an injunction. My friends in the legal field tell me that courts rarely impose a temporary injunction unless they’re pretty sure it’ll become permanent. To Bert’s point, I suspect Biden & Co. knew that this mandate would not stand and the whole ordeal is a political move that has nothing to do with safety one way or the other. This has nothing to do with whether the vaccine is safe or not. The federal government does not have the right to mandate every good health practice.

And not allowing someone to murder a child is not comparable to forcing someone to have a medical procedure. Improverishing those who disagree with your medical advice is not a choice.

It does look like religious organizations and churches my be different in how this might ultimately be administered. It is interesting that some seminaries license staff for housing allowance so would be considered “ministers of the Gospel”which might make a difference. I’ve work in human resources for the past 35 years and the last 15 hat a church. This is something I’m dealing with directly and am looking into what OSHA’s authority is over churches. 29 C.F.R. Section 1975.4 excludes what I would call “forward facing ministry workers” from OSHA regulation but not all church workers would be exempt if this is correct. We have 250 employees so at the surface are covered under this mandate from an employee size perspective and as a religious organization BLS 8131. I’d prefer keeping all of our staff as the same but it does look like we could exclude some staff from this mandate. Though I would not like to administer this person by person with some masked and others not who are not vaccinated. Also I think this may be “penny wise and pound foolish” as you would lose the legal protection given through OSHA as an employer for claims made by an employee as an example. The second thing that isn’t clear to me is might a church then subtract those staff number from your count to get below 100? If we are required to comply we will probably cover the testing kits for our unvaccinated staff. I’m vaccinated and are the majority of our staff so we will see where this lands.

According to a truckers’ trade association, 37% of truckers don’t want the jab. Small number?

As I’ve noted before, I’ve gotten the jab and would consider getting an update if my doctor recommends it. But let’s not pretend that there is little or no evidence of serious harm from this.

[Bert Perry]

According to a truckers’ trade association, 37% of truckers don’t want the jab. Small number?

As I’ve noted before, I’ve gotten the jab and would consider getting an update if my doctor recommends it. But let’s not pretend that there is little or no evidence of serious harm from this.

I’m still trying to understand what is the “serious harm”. Get tested weekly if you don’t want the vaccine. What is the serious harm?