Christian groups, including Answers in Genesis, ask Supreme Court to stop Biden employer vaccine mandate
“The First Liberty Institute, a legal nonprofit specializing in religious liberty cases, filed an emergency application for stay with the nation’s high court over the weekend on behalf of multiple faith-based organizations, arguing that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration vaccine mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” - CPost
- 27 views
Lots of weighty arguments can be made against a federal employer vaccination mandate, but I’m really not seeing what this has to do with religious freedom. Spurious legal appeals to religious liberty only weaken it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]Lots of weighty arguments can be made against a federal employer vaccination mandate, but I’m really not seeing what this has to do with religious freedom. Spurious legal appeals to religious liberty only weaken it.
I agree. The concern that I really have is when we will have a situation where religious liberty is truly at stake. If we base our fights on these types of issues, it waters down the value in future arguments. I am not a big fan of government mandates, but I fail to see a very strong tie between this mandate and an actual religious liberty issue. I think the public sees even a weaker tie when every religious institution has come out and stated that there are no religious issues associated with the vaccine.
They are arguing on the basis of what the Supreme Court itself has said that “religious conviction” and “religious liberty” are. A “religious conviction” is any belief which a person holds to “religiously”, whether or not that person’s belief involves a deity. The Sup Crt’s rulings on this go back to at least the early 1960s. Additionally, some believe that to “mandate” a vaccine which some think has a connection to aborted baby tissue violates “religious liberty”. The issue is not whether you or I think that the “abortion connection” is legitimate or not. The issue is that some do and therefore oppose being forced to receive a particular vaccine.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
The concern that I really have is when we will have a situation where religious liberty is truly at stake. If we base our fights on these types of issues, it waters down the value in future arguments.
Of course it might be the opposite, that you give it up little by little and when “religious liberty truly is at stake,” it is clear that no one cared up til now so why now? It is these small things that set the stage for bigger things. I think it is a mistake to reserve “religious liberty” only for the things you personally care about. It’s much bigger than that.
I have repeatedly asked here for those of you who think religious liberty has not been crossed when that line would be crossed. But no one answers. Churches were forbidden to practice their religion and yet religious liberty was not infringed upon. Churches were treated differently than other organizations yet religious liberty was not infringed upon (even though courts have repeatedly said differently). Christians were/are required to inject something into their body that they believe might harm their bodies that they believe belong to God yet religious liberty is not infringed.
So when will religious liberty be infringed upon? What is the line? And why must everyone else hold to your line?
The religious liberty argument is crystal clear. It is hard to imagine people saying they can’t see it. I will assume good faith in those statements but it strains credulity to be sure. I think people continue to think that their conscience should be forced on everyone else. So if Person A doesn’t have a religious objection then no one else can because it isn’t legitimate since Person A doesn’t have it.
[Larry]The concern that I really have is when we will have a situation where religious liberty is truly at stake. If we base our fights on these types of issues, it waters down the value in future arguments.
I have repeatedly asked here for those of you who think religious liberty has not been crossed when that line would be crossed. But no one answers.
For me they would be:
- Permanently unable to meet to worship
- Unable to preach the gospel message as found in Scripture
- Dictate how to operate a church or church service that is in contradiction to that which is outlined in Scripture
- Unable to practice my religious beliefs as outlined in Scripture at home
I don’t believe that we have an inherent right to religious freedom that is guaranteed. I believe the Constitution gives us that right, but I don’t believe it is guaranteed or necessary in order to worship Christ and be faithful to Him. The constitution does not give us the absolute protection around practice, only the protection around beliefs. This was played out when polygamy was banned.
For me, the temporary restrictions around gathering for health reasons and the vaccine mandate are not a red line, nor for me personally, do I think they erode any freedom. Mostly because we have had the exact elements seen during this pandemic, throughout the history of the United States and they were never permanent nor did they erode religious freedom. I view what we have in the US as a contradiction of history and society in general. It will not last. So I don’t know what a “red line” is at the end of the day. Some day it will be crossed, when it does I am doubtful that I will take up arms or join an insurrection. Right now we live in a Nirvana of sorts when it comes to religious liberties. Our Christian forefathers for the most part were never granted this, nor will our descendants.
[WallyMorris]They are arguing on the basis of what the Supreme Court itself has said that “religious conviction” and “religious liberty” are. A “religious conviction” is any belief which a person holds to “religiously”, whether or not that person’s belief involves a deity. The Sup Crt’s rulings on this go back to at least the early 1960s. Additionally, some believe that to “mandate” a vaccine which some think has a connection to aborted baby tissue violates “religious liberty”. The issue is not whether you or I think that the “abortion connection” is legitimate or not. The issue is that some do and therefore oppose being forced to receive a particular vaccine.
Not entirely true. I am not aware of every court case since the 1960’s. But Reynolds v. US outlawed Polygamy. The foundations of some of the reasoning went to the founding fathers and their perspective on what religious liberty really meant. There is a distinction between religious belief and actions that flow from the religious belief. I am not saying someone does or doesn’t have a right to use a religious exemption when it comes to a vaccine, only that there are limits to the actions that may result from religious beliefs. The government can’t dictate whether you do or don’t believe that your first born should be sacrificed, only that you can’t act on sacrificing your first born.
There are two COVID vaccines about to hit the market where no aborted fetuses were used in the development, manufacturing or testing of the vaccine. So those concerned should be able to rest easy and now they can take the vaccine Lastly, there is no definitive proof that the HEK-293 cell line used in a pre-clinical trial test of the Moderna mRNA came from aborted fetus. No matter what some doctor or site says, there is no proof. That is already very well documented. The only conclusive evidence is that they were fetal cells that originated from a female. The HEK-293 cell line today are not considered fetal cells.
I am still struggling after reading the entire court filing. They claimants say that the rules will put undue burden on them, but I fail to see how this is any different of a burden than OSHA’s safety requirements and mandates that they are already under. I remember institutions complaining 30 years ago when OSHA mandated that every chemical that existed anywhere on premise of an institution required to have MSDS sheets on file, readily available to any employee and a hotline to call if there were problems.
There are a ton of requirements that are imposed on these religious institutions that could impact someone’s religious beliefs today. For example, I know some Christians who believe a Social Security number is a sign of the mark of the beast. The do not obtain a Social Security number. In return religious institutions must require all employees to obtain a Social Security number regardless of their religious beliefs (https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2014/07/16/social-security-nu…). This has not held up in court.
I don’t necessarily disagree that they don’t have a case, but I don’t think the wording in the case that was filed really holds up well. I think they could have better arguments. The wording in the ruling for the most part is focused on an imposition of a rule that may impose on the religious convictions of their employees. They don’t spend practically any amount of time on what specifically around the mandate impacts religious beliefs. The focus on imposing a ruling that may impact religious convictions of their employees weakens their argument because there are religious convictions round many mandates that these same institutions impose today (i.e. SS numbers).
As an FYI, Novavax is now authorized in a number of countries including, just the other day, the EU. It is coming increasingly close to approval in the US, potentially before the end of the year, and more than likely before the end of January. This vaccine has absolutely no connection to any fetal cell line whatsoever (whether elective aborted or not), in any stage of its development or manufacturing. This will remove a significant number of religious exemptions. The small number that resists vaccination on religious grounds (estimated at less than 3% of the population) will be faced with evaluating their stance. If this was truly their reasoning, than they should be willing to accept the new vaccine. My guess, is that most will now move to another line of arguments and will align with what Wally is saying, which is that I can have a religious exemption to anything, without it really being a religious exemption and that thought process can’t be questioned. The other ones will continue to hold to something along the lines that any medicine impacts their religious beliefs. 96% of the military combined has been vaccinated and this is a population that is typically conservative and wary of government intervention. It is expected based on the current rate that about 99% will end up being vaccinated and only 1% will be let go from the armed services.
Thanks for the response.
Permanently unable to meet to worship
Why only permanently? That doesn’t seem to be a biblical standard.
Dictate how to operate a church or church service that is in contradiction to that which is outlined in Scripture
This actually happened when churches were told that they could not sing in contradiction to Scripture and that they could not observe communion in contradiction to Scripture. They were also told how big they could be, how close they could sit, etc.
The constitution does not give us the absolute protection around practice, only the protection around beliefs.
No, the exercise of religion, not the beliefs. Furthermore, beliefs require expression or practice. A belief that cannot be practiced is no belief at all. It is true that religious exercise is not a free for all, but no one is claiming that.
There are religious exemptions that have nothing to do with fetal cells. I always thought the fetal cell objection was weak. But there are others so even if Novavax has a vaccine without fetal cells, it doesn’t change the situation much for many people.
dgszweda: The case you cited illustrates that religious conviction/freedom is not an absolute right/freedom that always supercedes every challenge or situation. But the Sup Crt generally works to defer to the 1st Amendment. Which is one reason why people are challenging the mandate on religious grounds.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
They are arguing on the basis of what the Supreme Court itself has said that
“religious conviction” and “religious liberty” are. A “religious conviction”
is any belief which a person holds to “religiously”, whether or not that
person’s belief involves a deity. The Sup Crt’s rulings on this go back to at
least the early 1960s.
Since we’re talking about Christian organizations, the legal validity of their argument isn’t primary. The more fundamental question is whether there’s any Christian/biblical reason to see this as a religious liberty issue—with the understanding that when a Christian organization makes a religious liberty claim, they’re implying this is a matter of their Christian faith.
Which is why it’s hard to not take this sort of thing personally. The Christianity I know and believe seems to be besmirched by this sort of thing.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Various people posting on SI can debate extensively on the merits of these cases. Although it may make for interesting discussion here, the only aspect which matters is the Supreme Court’s history of ruling in religion cases. The litigants believe they have a good possibility of winning their case based on that history. For a good review of Sup Crt rulings in this area, see Abraham and Perry, Freedom And The Court, pp. 255-366, 8th edition.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
[dgszweda]I don’t believe that we have an inherent right to religious freedom that is guaranteed. I believe the Constitution gives us that right, but I don’t believe it is guaranteed or necessary in order to worship Christ and be faithful to Him.
This is a common error, but it deserves to be corrected. The Constitution does NOT give us the right to freedom of religion (or anything else). The Constitution restricts the government to keep them from infringing on the rights we already have apart from government. Our rights come from, as Jefferson put it in the Declaration “the laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God.” We do indeed have an inherent right to religious freedom, not because of the Constitution, but because of the way God made us. Having those rights restricted or removed requires the government to defend the reason they are doing so, not us having to defend the reason they shouldn’t. The burden of proof rests with them, not with those who object to their actions. Yes, we certainly can worship God without religious freedom as many have done throughout history. But why on earth do you want to if there is an alternative?
[Larry]Thanks for the response.
Permanently unable to meet to worship
Why only permanently? That doesn’t seem to be a biblical standard.
Dictate how to operate a church or church service that is in contradiction to that which is outlined in Scripture
This actually happened when churches were told that they could not sing in contradiction to Scripture and that they could not observe communion in contradiction to Scripture. They were also told how big they could be, how close they could sit, etc.
The constitution does not give us the absolute protection around practice, only the protection around beliefs.
No, the exercise of religion, not the beliefs. Furthermore, beliefs require expression or practice. A belief that cannot be practiced is no belief at all. It is true that religious exercise is not a free for all, but no one is claiming that.
There are religious exemptions that have nothing to do with fetal cells. I always thought the fetal cell objection was weak. But there are others so even if Novavax has a vaccine without fetal cells, it doesn’t change the situation much for many people.
Permanently because there will always be legitimate scenarios where permanent doesn’t work. Has your church ever in its history cancelled a service? What happens if the church building burns down? We met at a daycare one time and it flooded and we weren’t able to meet. I am not sure the church is in sin, if an emergency cancels a specific church service.
I never said I agreed with laws that prohibited singing and/or communion. But I believe the church has a responsibility to reasonably accommodate some potential short terms scenarios. Every church building has a limit to how many can sit in the building legally and we abide by that every day.
No, not all excercise of religion is not absolutley protected. Child sacrifice and polygamy are religious activities that are not protected by the Constitition.
They were also told how big they could be, how close they could sit, etc.
This is not new. In many places, fire codes have told churches how many people can be in their buildings for lots of years. Several other aspects of COVID restrictions have near-parallels in history. Of course, one could counter that “Well, we were wrong to accept these government limitations in the past,” but I’m generally not hearing that argument, which is interesting.
Similarly, the argument could be made that “A church closing its doors temporarily is different from the gov. telling them to close their doors,” but usually the argument is: “Scripture requires churches to not cancel services so we can’t obey the government,” or something along those lines. But this is weak, because there’s no biblical prohibition against conforming to a government order to do what you could do anyway, when circumstances seem to warrant it (like a weather cancellation, or building destroyed, etc).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[WallyMorris]dgszweda: The case you cited illustrates that religious conviction/freedom is not an absolute right/freedom that always supercedes every challenge or situation. But the Sup Crt generally works to defer to the 1st Amendment. Which is one reason why people are challenging the mandate on religious grounds.
I have talked to many, many people who hold a “religious” conviction around the vaccines. This includes most of my extended family as well. Practically all of them say it is a religious right, but in reality it is only a belief they have that is disguised as religious conviction. The second you start discussing with them, it always reverts to something around Biden, government mandates, fake science, Fauci is a liar…… But because they are a Christian, they feel that they can take all of that and wrap it around a religious liberty bow. It doesn’t bother me that people may have religious grounds to refuse the vaccine. And it doesn’t bother me if the Supreme Court supports that. It bothers me that out of every 100 people who claim religious grounds, it is actually maybe 1, and the rest are abusing it.
Discussion