Christian groups, including Answers in Genesis, ask Supreme Court to stop Biden employer vaccine mandate

[T Howard]

1 Cor. 13:11

Of course, that’s not the definitive answer to the whole situation is it? My example used teens, but adults also often make unwise choices. A large percentage of the homeless population is in their situation due to their own choices. I guess you’re saying I have the right to never be compassionate to them since as adults they made their own bed and can now lie in it. Got it. That will certainly help simplify my interactions in the future. Thank you so much!

Larry and Dave,

Have a great New Years.

I understand, but out of the few that have religious objections, this is a very large part of them.

I have actually heard very few appeal to abortion, but even if they did, that is fine. Again, remember, religious conscience is not necessarily based on truth but on conscience. It is afforded to everyone, not just those who agree with me or you. And to sin against conscience is sin (Rom 14).

I can argue strongly that there are certain people here who are clearly factually wrong and yet you are still entitled to live by what you believe. I think there still continues to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how conscience and objections work, particularly in our society. Should a Muslim or a JW not be given religious freedom because they are wrong? Of course they should and we should be the ones helping them fight for it.

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.

It could be, or perhaps not. I don’t know how you can tell the number of people who have a sincerely held religious belief, but be that as it may, the problem is that it matters at all. Had the government spent more time talking the vaccine up and less time trying force it on people, we get the same outcome without all the strife. Remember, politicians (both professional and amateur) have spent years sowing distrust and hatred of “the other side.” And when the fruits of that show up, it is going to be a problem. Perhaps the funniest irony is that the left spent months saying they wouldn’t trust a vaccine developed under Trump and now are upset that people agree with them and don’t trust the vaccine. Politics is filled with silliness and worse.

To me the biggest issue is that those who should be fighting the hardest for religious liberty are often the ones who are most willing to give it up.

T Howard, I appreciate the “Happy New Years” wishes but making a snarky comment as an attack on someone is not an acceptable way to carry on a conversation. I would encourage you to either explain your comment or remove it. It serves no purpose in furthering this conversation.

[Larry]

I can argue strongly that there are certain people here who are clearly factually wrong and yet you are still entitled to live by what you believe. I think there still continues to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how conscience and objections work, particularly in our society.

I think you might have a misunderstanding. The law stipulates “Sincerely held religious belief”. There is plenty of case law that outlines what that means. You may not legally be entitled to live by what you believe, at least as it relates to the law in this case. I am not saying that it holds up in this case or not, as there is much nuance around the implementation of the mandate and courts will need to define this. I am just outlining that there are restrictions around “religious belief” legally contrary to your statement. One such common case in at least California law is Smith v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission. Second, there are many cases where sincerely held religious beliefs are actually criminal. You often find this highlighted very clearly in cults. But as I stated before, this could go to Polygamy, where a mainstream religion’s practice of polygamy was deemed criminal despite it being a sincerely held religious belief and one that met all of the statutes of a sincerely held religious belief.

Lastly, is it equally sinful to claim a religious exemption, when you do not have belief that it is a religious exemption? This Washington Post article sums up many examples where people lie. I am all for religious exemptions when they are sincerely held. Can I determine which ones are or aren’t? No, but I know there are much more out there than there should be. The courts will ultimately decide this, but despite Romans 14, the US is not a theocracy and it may ultiimately determine what is sincerely held and what is legal in the country.

[Larry]

T Howard, I appreciate the “Happy New Years” wishes but making a snarky comment as an attack on someone is not an acceptable way to carry on a conversation. I would encourage you to either explain your comment or remove it. It serves no purpose in furthering this conversation.

Larry, it was not meant as a personal attack, but just reflecting the difference between how a child (i.e. teenager) thinks and reasons and how a grown adult should think and reason. By extension, the teenager is less culpable than an adult when it comes to making foolish decisions.

Further, I never said we shouldn’t feel compassion for people who make foolish decisions. I only said it was harder for me to do so. When people remain stubbornly adamantine in their foolish decisions, then unfortunately they (and their families) will suffer the consequences. We’re not talking about someone struggling with an addiction. We’re talking about people who willfully chose to not get a vaccine that could have saved their lives.

Yes, we should still show compassion to their families. But, we also must acknowledge the law of sowing and reaping: foolish decisions lead to sub-optimal outcomes.

BTW, another friend of mine recently died from COVID, this time on Christmas day. I believe he was unable to get the vaccinate because of health reasons. We’re going to his funeral tonight.

[T Howard]

When people remain stubbornly adamantine in their foolish decisions, then unfortunately they (and their families) will suffer the consequences. We’re not talking about someone struggling with an addiction. We’re talking about people who willfully chose to not get a vaccine that could have saved their lives.

Yes, we should still show compassion to their families. But, we also must acknowledge the law of sowing and reaping: foolish decisions lead to sub-optimal outcomes.

BTW, another friend of mine recently died from COVID, this time on Christmas day. I believe he was unable to get the vaccinate because of health reasons. We’re going to his funeral tonight.

First, Happy New Year to you too.

2nd, I’m sorry to hear about your friend. That’s a tough situation. My sister also hasn’t been vaccinated, due to her doctor recommending against it due to her various health issues including stage-IV lung cancer (not from smoking), maintenance chemo she’s taking, etc. We just had an early Christmas dinner with her last Thursday, and Saturday we found out she had tested positive for Covid, and as a result, my wife and I and the other family there are also having to stay away from church, etc., until we are certain we don’t have Covid, since we were exposed. She is currently feeling better, and we are praying for her recovery. But I would do so even if she hadn’t been vaccinated just because she didn’t want to, rather than because she was advised against it medically.

People evaluate risk differently all the time. Should it be “harder” for us to feel compassion for those who voluntarily chose a risky job that killed or severely injured them (like firefighting) when they could have chosen something else, or those who choose “risky” activities like skydiving or motorcycling and they suffer from an accident while taking part? We can always claim we’re “safer” due to supposedly “wiser” choices we made, but it’s not necessarily true. I can both accept a person taking the risk from not getting vaccinated for Covid and still praying for them, etc., if they get infected. And seeing that there have been deaths from Covid while vaccinated (just like people who stay home and refuse “risky” activities can still have a heart attack on the couch), it’s clear that vaccination is not a 100% solution either even if it prevents death for >90% of the people taking it (though I don’t think we have really good numbers yet on how good the vaccine really is, as they keep changing).

I refuse to place a moral judgment on others’ “risky” choices (i.e. risky as I see them), unless the choice itself is a sin as designated in the Bible. Refusing a vaccine doesn’t fall into that category.

We’re talking about people who willfully chose to not get a vaccine that could have saved their lives.

Thanks for the clarification. However you are assuming that being unvaccinated is automatically foolish. It may not be. I think Dave has responded well. As he points out, we all assume various levels of risks for various reasons.

I think you might have a misunderstanding.

No, no misunderstanding. Of course religious liberty has to be “sincere” and it is not open-ended. I never said anything to the contrary. I have said that elsewhere, I believe. But the point is that it is a legitimate category that has long been recognized, even in the area of vaccines and other medications.

But I think comparing this vaccine to cults or to polyamory or other stuff is a failure of critical thinking. They aren’t the same, so far as I can see.

Lastly, is it equally sinful to claim a religious exemption, when you do not have belief that it is a religious exemption?

I am not clear on this question. “Equally sinful” to what?

If you say you have a religious objection when you don’t, you are lying. It is sin. Don’t do it. But I would hesitate to sit in judgment on a sincere religious conviction. I have seen many sincere religious convictions that I think are absolutely foolish and wrong. They are still sincere. I wouldn’t call them a liar because of that or because perhaps they aren’t as consistent as I think they should be.

People lie for all sorts of reasons including to maintain power in politics. It seems that some assume that the lies are all being told by those claiming a religious exemption. What about the lies being told on the other side? We have seen Fauci tell outright lies. Why? We have seen Biden tell outright lies? We have seen Collins say things that were untrue and most likely lies since he should have known better. We have seen virtually every single politician lie. It’s all over. It is hardly limited to claiming a religious exemption.

The courts will ultimately decide this, but despite Romans 14, the US is not a theocracy and it may ultiimately determine what is sincerely held and what is legal in the country.

The courts won’t ultimately decide what a sincerely held objection is. Only an individual can do that. The court may say that such a claim is not a legal claim to avoid something or to do something and then the person will have a choice to make. Appealing to Romans 14 is no claim of a theocracy. It is about conscience—that if a person has a conscience issue, they must not go against it. To do so would be sin.

To me, the more knowledge we get about the vaccine, the easier this becomes. It doesn’t do what we were told it would do. Most people have been vaccinated without the mandate. We have achieved the levels of “immunity” without a mandate. Or to borrow a legal phrase, a less restrictive means worked.

What right do we as a society have to tell people “get an injection or lose your job and your participation in society”? Doesn’t that trouble you?

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.

Generally, I think courts wants to stay out of this and so defers to the religious freedom side. Courts don’t want to be in the position of determining what a valid religious belief is. Whether or not they will keep that stance in this case will be interesting but in recent years they have given deference to religion.

If I remember correctly, this has already been litigated (and Christians/Churches lost) in the courts last year during the pandemic.

I think the churches have won many of the cases previously. I haven’t kept count but LA County and California are supposed to pay $400K each to GCC to resolve the case (and that’s in addition to what they spent trying to defend the case). That little boondoggle is costing them over $2 million dollars. CA is paying another $2 million to a church to settle. DC is paying $220K to Capitol Hill for restrictions. Other cases are also being settled. Some cases lost in court but a good number of them won or settled in favor of the church out of court.