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
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.
This has been my experience as well.
We often hold other people’s views to rigorous biblical-validity standards but lower the standards quite a bit (or chuck them entirely) when the view is something we’ve already decided. (So what’s going on here a good bit of the time is a gut reaction with a biblical rationalization.)
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]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.
This has been my experience as well.
Same for me.
However, I’ve already said my piece about all of this and won’t rehash. BTW, there are several families in the church we’re attending who have a loved one in the hospital on a ventilator who refused to get the vaccine. I want to be compassionate, but I’m having a hard time feeling sorry for them. They chose to ignore or reject the warnings, and now they are suffering the consequences.
It’s like the Yellowstone tourists who ignore all the signs warning them to keep their distance from wildlife and then get gored, trampled, or thrown into the air by a wild buffalo because they wanted to get a selfie with it.
Okay, I’m done. I promise.
“Unlike the previous vaccines authorized by the FDA for use in the United States, Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine uses decades-old, abortion-derived cells in its design, development and production, as well as its testing.”
https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/despite-ethical-ques…
You may or may not think that makes a difference, but the connection to abortion seems to be a fact. Those who do think it makes a difference have my respect.
David R. Brumbelow
[David R. Brumbelow]“Unlike the previous vaccines authorized by the FDA for use in the United States, Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine uses decades-old, abortion-derived cells in its design, development and production, as well as its testing.”
https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/despite-ethical-quest…
You may or may not think that makes a difference, but the connection to abortion seems to be a fact. Those who do think it makes a difference have my respect.
David R. Brumbelow
J&J, yes that statement, is more or less correct. For something like Moderna, which used the HEK-293 cell line in pre-clinical testing only, the link to abortion is not a fact. Where the HEK-293 came from is unknown. Abortion linked vaccine opponents will say that since the lab in the Netherlands often used cells from aborted fetuses, there is a high likely hood that the cells that HEK was derived from were from an elective abortion. But there is not one shred of evidence that it came from an abortion.
Like Moore, I struggle with the ethics of this. While I am 100% opposed to creating a scientific environment that pushes for abortions to promote science, something like the Moderna vaccine becomes a stretch. Even when you add on Moore’s comments, I struggle with whether a few pre-clinical tests that used HEK-293 promote abortion or reward abortion. Cells derived from aborted cells were used in the testing of the MMR vaccine, yet 92% of parents give their children that vaccine. If someone wants to hold to that, I do have a certain level of respect. Although in the end, like I said above in the next 30-60 days there will be COVID vaccines with no connection to aborted fetal cells, so the argument pretty much goes away at that point.
Has your church ever in its history cancelled a service? What happens if the church building burns down?
Of course (our church actually burned down on a Saturday night in 1942 I think and they met the next morning anyway in some way I am told), but these aren’t the same, right? I don’t get why these things are being brought up as if they are the same kind of things? Having some sort of tragedy or natural disaster that prevents meeting for a week or even two is a whole lot different than the government telling healthy people that they cannot meet in any way.
I never said I agreed with laws that prohibited singing and/or communion.
You said there were no religious liberty lines crossed and a line would be for the government to “Dictate how to operate a church or church service that is in contradiction to that which is outlined in Scripture.” I was simply pointing out that a line you identified as a line had already been crossed, yet you still claimed there were no lines crossed. Yet the courts have said that lines were crossed.
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.
Again, this simply a mixing of issues.
I think I have been consistent that believers can, in good conscience, deal with this scenario in different ways. We did stop meeting for a time, against my better judgment because I was putting people in the place of violating their own conscience about church.
My problem is that there are still people who claim that there were no religious liberty issues and that government was entitled to do what it did, in spite of both Scripture and the fact that government has repeatedly lost court cases about this.
I think we need a better ecclesiology.
[David R. Brumbelow] You may or may not think that makes a difference, but the connection to abortion seems to be a fact. Those who do think it makes a difference have my respect.I’ve been trying to figure out what the exact moral issue is with taking a vaccine that has a connection to abortion. If someone needed a transplant, would they object to getting an organ from someone who was murdered? I could see an objection if you murdered someone so you or a loved one could get the organ. I would also see an objection if people were being murdered to increase the general supply of organs, because that would be supporting or encouraging a wicked practice, even if for a general good. In regard to abortion and vaccines, none of the babies aborted were aborted so that there cells could be used for medical research (that I am aware of). The use of these cell lines does not contribute to further abortions or the funding new abortions. Just like the person getting an organ from a murder victim is not responsible for that murder, or encouraging murders, or funding murders, neither is the person benefiting from a vaccine that may have been developed using a cell line originating from an abortion. Someone made the point that if you get information about a potential bombing threat via unethical torture, you don’t just let the people potentially impacted by that bomb threat die because the information was gathered in an immoral way. No, you work to stop the immortal way of gaining information, but you don’t further the wrong by allowing the people to die. Note, I realize that in our law system, some evidence is not admissible if it is gathered illegally, but that is done to protect people’s rights in general. That illegally-gathered information would not prevent authorities from trying to stop further crimes using that information.
I’m just trying to think through this issue to know what the exact moral objection is. If anyone can explain the objection that would be helpful for me.
In many places, fire codes have told churches how many people can be in their buildings for lots of years.
Aaron, you are big on critical thinking and discernment and you write about it here often. And that makes this comment really strange because I see no evidence of critical thinking or discernment in it. These things simply are not similar. Building codes are entirely different than the COVID restrictions. A church can get a bigger building or divide into two churches or three or whatever. Under COVID, they could not meet at all. So these things are not the result of critical thinking and comparison.
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.
That argument has actually been made in several places and I would make the same argument. I think it dead wrong to say, “Well, we have always enforced vaccines so it is right to do it now” or “Everything shut down in 1919 during the Spanish Flu therefore it’s good to do it.” Imagine applying that to other issues: “Well, you know black people have always drunk from a different water fountain and ridden on the back of the bus.” Anytime you appeal to history, critical thinking and discernment should require us to go back and ask a bunch of questions.
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.
Again, Aaron, I am not sure you are being fair to the argument here. First, the argument has consistently been made that closing doors temporarily is different than government requiring it. I have made that argument and that’s exactly what we did. Second, I have never seen the argument that “Scripture requires a church to not cancel services.” Everyone has acknowledged (to my knowledge) that there are times to cancel services.
So I think you have misrepresented the arguments here.
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).
First, there is the civic issue of religious liberty. That is not a distinctively Christian argument though I think it is biblical to be sure since Christianity requires the freedom of conscience for all, not just for Christians. Second, everyone agrees that it is okay to cancel services when circumstances seem to warrant it. So again, I think with all your talk about critical thinking and discernment, you are still missing the boat on this one. The point here is entirely different and that is the government’s mandate to shut down churches and regulate religious practices in churches. It should be the easiest thing in the world to acknowledge that as questionable, at best. In the very best and most generous reading, it was questionable to do that. And I would point out that the courts have sided against you in this regard. They have agreed that the government did not have the right to do all that they did and in fact some governments are paying big bucks to settle lawsuits for these things.
Again there are good reasons and plenty of room for Christians to disagree about exactly how to walk through this. But let’s be careful not to minimize the real issues, not to misrepresent people’s arguments, to not require that other people’s conscience match ours, and to give grace to those who differ.
Although in the end, like I said above in the next 30-60 days there will be COVID vaccines with no connection to aborted fetal cells, so the argument pretty much goes away at that point.
But only for those whose sole objection is abortion/fetal cell related. That does nothing for those whose objection is different.
[T Howard] BTW, there are several families in the church we’re attending who have a loved one in the hospital on a ventilator who refused to get the vaccine. I want to be compassionate, but I’m having a hard time feeling sorry for them. They chose to ignore or reject the warnings, and now they are suffering the consequences.
The fact that it is sometimes hard to be compassionate about others’ choices doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t. If one of your church teens, in spite of all advice, goes out and drives stupidly (drunk, or speeding 100mph, etc.) and ends up in the hospital, would you have no compassion for that teen or their family because of the circumstances (the teen “chose to ignore or reject the warnings” and is now suffering)? It is certainly a human reaction to think that way, but hardly, as I read scripture, the right one or one we should defend, just because somehow “Covid is different.”
Dave Barnhart
[Larry]Although in the end, like I said above in the next 30-60 days there will be COVID vaccines with no connection to aborted fetal cells, so the argument pretty much goes away at that point.
But only for those whose sole objection is abortion/fetal cell related. That does nothing for those whose objection is different.
I understand, but out of the few that have religious objections, this is a very large part of them. Most of the other ones that I have ran into, and that others have confirmed was their experience, are not based on sincerely held religious beliefs. They are upset with government control, Fauci, Biden…. and they then convey that as a religious belief. I have no problem with a sincerely held religious belief, but in my opinion that number is incredibly small in real life, and is not indicative of the numerous people are using it as a way out of the vaccine.
Again, back to the original post, AiG and others in their suit are very much unclear as to why this goes against their beliefs, and I think that is indicative of the broader scope of those who are against the vaccine for religious purposes.
[AndyE]I’m just trying to think through this issue to know what the exact moral objection is. If anyone can explain the objection that would be helpful for me.
I struggle as well. I have searched high and low on the internet and the best arguments out there around this topic, appear to be very weak and inconsistent, such as the areas that you pointed out. The arguments put forth have just grown weaker over the years. Even Christian Scientists who are typically opposed to vaccines are supportive of the COVID vaccine. What is surprising to me is that all of the religious denominations that are opposed to abortion for any reason, are entirely supportive of the COVID vaccines. Some of these denominations have strong and robust ethics departments/institutions that spend a great deal of time dealing with ethics and religion/their denomination. In the end, I think it is just another layer of misinformation or lack of understanding that is spread throughout our society in general.
Color me skeptical that this injunction will be granted on ‘religious freedom’ grounds. I simply don’t see SCOTUS wanting to take that issue up because they would need to get into the business of determining valid vs. specious religious beliefs. Maybe that’s just because I haven’t read deeply about this case but I just don’t see it. If I remember correctly, this has already been litigated (and Christians/Churches lost) in the courts last year during the pandemic.
What I am surprised about is how the 14th Amendment guarantees women the right to privacy over their own bodies but does not guarantee anyone else the right for the same when it comes to vaccines (pro or against it). I know that several labor unions and large associations have also been fighting this in court and I would imagine that issue will end up at SCOTUS eventually. We can thank the Court for that ruling in…yep…Roe v. Wade.
For the record, NYC has begun mandating vaccines for any businesses over 100 people. I expect that will be tied up in litigation forever but we’ll have to see what the new mayor of NYC (Eric Adams) decides to do once he takes office in a few days. Either way, vax fatigue is real and I expect that the mandate is unenforceable because people are not going comply for whatever reasons, similar to Prohibition.
The reckoning of the Christian Right is here. Sadly it’s just going disgrace the Gospel.
Nailed. It.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Here is where I think it will come out.
- Government mandates for federal employees including military will be upheld in court. The vaccine rate, inclusive of those seeking exemptions is a little over 97%. I think it is clear that the government has broad say over their own employees and in particular even greater latitude when it comes to the military who has had vaccine mandates almost since the founding of this country.
- State and local government mandates for their respective employees will be upheld in court.
- Private employers vaccine mandates will be upheld in court.
- Government mandates across private citizens will be struck down in court.
In reality, this was less about the government giving a mandate that would stick and more about giving cover to private employers to begin setting mandates and having them stick.
[dcbii]The fact that it is sometimes hard to be compassionate about others’ choices doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t. If one of your church teens, in spite of all advice, goes out and drives stupidly (drunk, or speeding 100mph, etc.) and ends up in the hospital, would you have no compassion for that teen or their family because of the circumstances (the teen “chose to ignore or reject the warnings” and is now suffering)? It is certainly a human reaction to think that way, but hardly, as I read scripture, the right one or one we should defend, just because somehow “Covid is different.”
1 Cor. 13:11
1 Cor. 13:11
Is that a confession? Or an attack?
Discussion