Religious exemptions from vaccination?

[MineralMan]

So, if you believe some supernatural crap, it's OK if you spread a pandemic virus? I don't think so.

Religion is a choice people make. Nobody is born with a requirement to worship a deity or any number of deities. It's not an inborn condition. People choose the religion they follow at some point. The default is non-belief. Religion is a choice.

So, if your workplace requires vaccination, and it should, you are also free to choose not to work there. Exercise your "freedom of choice" and just quit if you refuse vaccination. You chose religion. Now, you can choose unemployment if you think your religion frees you from the responsibility of not infecting those around you.

Choose. Act on your choice. Maybe you can find some solo career that doesn't require human contact. I don't care. Your religion has no relevance to my life.

[secondwind]

1. LET THEM DIE... that's how I feel at this point...

Seriously!

[FoxNewsSucks]

2. When it comes to willfully ignorant MAGAts

I'm past letting them. I'm now in favor of speeding it up and be rid of them already.

[Dream Girl]

7. Sad to say, I feel the same. Not proud of it, but there you go.

[MineralMan]

3. Well, I wouldn't go that far.

However, if they choose to risk their own health and life by refusing a proven vaccine, they should not be free to infect others at the place they work. Screw that!

[Just_Vote_Dem]

11. When I first started posting here

I was clear that one of the reasons that I was against Repubs was that, directly or indirectly, I felt that they wanted those who were against them to die. Now I read so many posts where people on my side seem to have the same bloodlust, and it's distressing to me.

[StarfishSaver]

17. I'm with you

It's very distressing - as our the demands that we break the rules and abuse the process as Republicans do in order to prevail over them .

In my view, one of the great values of being a Democrat is that we are not like Republicans. But it's clear that many Democrats really aren't much different than Republicans and have no problem with bad behavior and hateful views - as long as they think it benefits our side.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

21. Yes-doing the right thing takes time

And if we become like them, we are all lost

[MineralMan]

18. Yes. It's a paradox that I deplore, frankly.

I do not wish for people to die. I just wish for some people to go far away from me and stop bothering me.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

20. Me too. n/t

[Bob_in_VA]

52. I think you are wrong

What I see is more along the lines of "if you want to needlessly risk your life and the lives of others then hurry up and die and quit endangering the rest of us". Anyone who is willfully unvaxxed is an existential threat to everyone around them. Just like a suicide bomber only using a biological weapon instead of C4.

[rurallib]

13. if they could do so without sucking up resources such as hospital beds

and also not spread their filth I would be all in favor of letting them die.

Unfortunately as they go they wreak a whirlwind of damage and use of resources.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. Here we go again.

Source: https://blog.library.gsu.edu/2012/03/23/secularists-descend-upon-d-c-for-reason-rally/

{edited to add}

Fri Jan 25, 2019: Johns Hopkins to buy Newseum building in D.C. as journalism museum plans to relocate

[dickthegrouch]

23. It's the word establishment that so many misunderstand

It did not mean create from nothing in the 1700s.

It meant something closer to the tenets.

Therefore the sacraments and things like marriage and divorce were establishments of religion when that was written.

Otherwise it would most definitely have said “… the establishment of A religion…”

[mahatmakanejeeves]

31. No. The establishment clause means that the government cannot establish an official

state religion.

It can't make the Anglican Church the official state religion, for example.

[dickthegrouch]

35. It means that too

But because the tenets of the religion are untenable to the state.

Remember they had just gone through a hundred or so years of extreme gyrations with Catholicism and Anglicanism accompanied by murderous violence perpetrated by both. They wanted nothing to do with either in the affairs of the State and crafted the language very carefully. It’s us as 21st century readers who don’t understand all of its nuances.

[Ms. Toad]

49. You are mistaken.

There two clauses: establishment - this addresses government sponsored religion. The other is the free exercise clause - which prohibits the government from interfering with an individual's right to freely exercise their religious beliefs.

Neither is without limits, BUT the free exercise clause - which is implicated by people claming exemption to vaccinations, the draft, working on the Sabbath, using peyote in native rituals, etc, It is not limited to beliefs you think are valid, nor does establishment have anything, specifically, to do with religion establishing sacraments.

[dickthegrouch]

63. Re-read some Shakespeare or Milton.

Look at the specific sentence construction. There is an entirely different interpretation possible.

[FBaggins]

5. Depends on the religious exemption

If you're a member of some religion that legitimately opposes vaccinations in general, that would be one thing (and you would be exempting yourself from some things like air travel, etc.) .

But being a member of a denomination that really has no doctrine on the matter at all... but you just think that the underlying principles suggest that government shouldn't be allowed to tell you what to do and you don't want a vaccine... that's a different case.

[StarfishSaver]

19. Religious beliefs don't depend on belonging to a denomination

If a person can prove that their religious beliefs are truly held and not a pretext, that is just as valid for a religious exemption as belonging to a denomination is.

[Bluesaph]

25. No proof is required

Simply stating you believe it is enough. No one is burdened even remotely to follow all the tenets of their claimed religion either. If they ONLY follow a supposed anti Covid vaccine jab as their religion it is protected.

That said, employers probably cannot accommodate them without undue hardship and risk to others.

So there is that!

[StarfishSaver]

28. Yes - you're right

Thanks.

[Ms. Toad]

53. I'm guessing you were never involved in establishing conscientious objection to the draft -

Simply stating what you believe is not enough. The process of establishing a conscientious objection to participation in the military was grueling, and people were denied conscientious objection status based on (lack of) membership in one of the traditional peace churches, or for admitting that if they were forced to choose between watching grandma be gutted and exercising violence against the person doing the gutting that they might resort to violence.

But this likely falls under the priniciples (if not the letter of) Employment Division v. Smith, which denied unemployment compensation to Smith, a Native American, who used peyote as part of a religious ceremony - then tested positive on a drug test.

It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended....

[Bluesaph]

69. That was a long time ago

I am just telling you what Kaiser Permanente is doing and based on the research I’ve done.

[Ms. Toad]

71. The law has not significantly changed. n/t

[FBaggins]

27. Sure sure... whatever

I mean that there's a difference between whether your religious beliefs actually relate to vaccinations in general (as I think Christian Scientists used to) vs. a religious belief about the role of different levels of government causing you think that you shouldn't listen to the government. I'm sure, for instance, that there are people who think that god is a republican and therefore would listen if Trump said something but not if Biden said that same thing. The belief might be "truly held", but it arguably isn't really something that should be exempted from a state vaccination requirement in order for the law to be sufficiently "tailored".

[StarfishSaver]

30. Please see Bluesaph's response above

The state has no right to parse and individuals religious beliefs in the way you're suggesting. If it's a truly held religious belief And based on that belief they opposed being vaccinated, that's the end of it.

[FBaggins]

37. I don't think that an articulability expectation would run afoul of existing precedent

Citizen - "I believe in the quaternity... that god is in four parts... and thus cannot accept a vaccination"

Court - "Huh?"

Employment Division v. Smith isn't applicable?

[StarfishSaver]

40. The fact that a court doesn't understand belief

does not mean the belief is not entitled to an exception.

I don't think Employment Division v. Smith applies generally because it involves the application of a criminal law, specifically, whether a state can criminalize a particular action (and by extension, refusal to engage in a particular action) a crime.

But I do think this particular point directly applies to your comment: "[S]uch a right [cannot] be limited to situations in which the conduct prohibited is 'central' to the individual's religion, since that would enmesh judges in an impermissible inquiry into the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith."

BTW, how sad and nostalgic to read a Supreme Court opinion that includes the words: "BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined"?

[FBaggins]

43. I see what you're saying

I do think, however, that there's a difference between evaluating how central something is to one's faith and whether or not there is a plausible connection at all.

"I believe that god wants me to answer to no other human - so your laws do not apply to me" isn't likely to hold water.

In the Philadelphia adoption case, for instance, "we believe that marriage is between a man and a woman" might not be sufficient if they do not also say "and that only married couples may adopt children".

[Ms. Toad]

58. The centrality for some is the use of tissue from aborted fetuses

in testing and/or manufacturing the vaccines.

When it comes to the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, fetal cell line HEK 293 was used during the research and development phase. All HEK 293 cells are descended from tissue taken from a 1973 abortion that took place in the Netherlands. Using fetal cell lines to test the effectiveness and safety of medications is common practice, because they provide a consistent and well-documented standard.

For the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, fetal cell lines were used in the production and manufacturing stage. To make the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, scientists infect PER.C6 fetal cell lines to grow the adenovirus vector. (Learn more about how viral vector vaccines work.) All PER.C6 cells used to manufacture the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are descended from tissue taken from a 1985 abortion that took place in the Netherlands. This cell line is used because it is a well-studied industry standard for safe and reliable production of viral vector vaccines.

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/you-asked-we-answered-do-the-covid-19-vaccines-contain-aborted-fetal-cells

For those who truly believe life begins at conception, accepting the benefits of abortion would be akin to accepting treatment which had its origins in the information gained from Nazi medical experimentation.

I am not, for a minute, suggesting that everyone claiming a religious exemption to vaccination even pretends to have any articulable religious basis for the exemption, but some do.

And - as you suggested - Employent Division v. Smith likely applies. And, taking the logic from the case - the government could choose to accommodate those who have religious exemptions (by requiring mask wearing, prohibiting eating in shared areas, work from home, etc.) But I do not beleive they would be required to.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

66. There is no basis in the Jewish or Christian faiths for religious exemption

Link to tweet

[FBaggins]

67. That doesn't matter

We don't get to decide which religions "count" as acceptable for an exception or whether an individual adherent's belief is correctly aligned with the label they choose to apply to themselves. I'm really certain that we don't get to take a social media post of a father speaking to a school board as evidence of what both Jews and Christians believe.

My only additional thought was that you can't use your religion as an excuse to support your politics - IOW falsely claiming a religious exemption. But I agree with earlier posters who point out how unlikely it is to be able to enforce that.

[niyad]

6. I think about the Wiccan Rede, "An it harm none, do as thou wilt." Exactly the

Opposite of what the xians are whining. Every witch I know was about first in line for the vaccine as soon as they were eligible. It was, and remains, the correct thing to do.

[MineralMan]

10. Blessed Be.

Yes, that is a wonderful rede. Makes sense. In many ways, it's just a restatement of the much-ignored "Golden Rule."

Sadly, some religious groups pay very little attention to their own holy writings and scripture. It's all in there, but is honored more in the breach than the observance.

[Texaswitchy]

68. I go by the rule of three.

Whatever you do will come back at you three times.

So think hard.

Witches and pagans are always thrashed.

We are not the evil ones.

[CrispyQ]

8. I would like to know how many of these "religious exemption" folk have gotten other vaccines.

Like the ones required to travel outside the US. Or the ones required for kids to go to school. I suspect the vast majority are opposed to this vaccine only. Fucking hypocrites.

[luvtheGWN]

46. I read some time ago that only 30% of Americans have passports.

Thus I suspect those opposed to the vaccine are not interested in exploring other countries (maybe not even other states).

Far too much weight is given to "religious exemptions" IMHO, especially when that exemption has the potential to harm other people. This equates, perhaps, to a person driving drunk. Or the Jehovah's Witness parents whose religion forbids blood transfusions to save the life of their child.

[Beastly Boy]

9. It's not the nature of religious beliefs. It's the separation between church and state.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Religious exemption from just about anything mandated by the government is a must in any government action. Private individuals, on the other hand, can sue unvaccinated religious nuts for damages in a civil court. In this event, "religious freedom" is no excuse.

[MineralMan]

14. One is free to believe and worship as one pleases.

However, that is based on an equally powerful concept that one should not harm others in the name of religion..

So, a church that sacrifices children as part of its doctrine and rites would not be free to do so in this country.

No freedom is unlimited. Freedom of belief and worship applies only to individuals and is restricted when those beliefs and practices harm others who do nor share those beliefs.

The First Amendment is not a blank check. Not in any way.

[lagomorph777]

26. +1000 Your right to practice your religion ends where it affects my safety.

[StarfishSaver]

32. That's why employers are required to only go so far to accommodate the belief

If there's no way they can reasonably accommodate the employee's religious belief, an employer is not required to retain them.

[Beastly Boy]

34. The vaccine exemption doesn't quite fit in the concept of "harming others"

Not being vaccinated is a passive act that does not automatically constitute deliberate harm to others. It will have to be tested in court, and, to overrule the religious exemption, the burden of proof will need to establish that permitting the exemption would amount to "professed doctrines of religious belief [to be] superior to the law of the land" (Reynolds v. United States). I am sure Biden received sufficient legal advice to inform him in favor of including the religious exemption in his mandate.

[Aristus]

12. I've got a guy coming in to my clinic today who wants a vaccine exemption.

The schedule doesn't list the reason. But no matter the reason, I'm sending him packing. I won't have any anti-vaxxers in my clinic.

[MichMan]

55. I have a friend that just received a liver transplant and shouldn't have any vaccinations

You would refuse him any medical treatments of any kind ?

[StarfishSaver]

15. Religious exemptions aren't unlimited

A person can claim their religion prevents them from getting a vaccination. And if they do, the employer must make reasonable efforts to accommodate them. But the employer doesn't have to turn its business upside down in order to do that.

If the employer claims in good faith that a vaccination is a necessary component of the employment - which is not difficult to do during a pandemic - makes reasonable efforts to accommodate the unvaccinated employee in a way that does not undermine the business but is unable to do so, and the employee still will not get vaccinated, the employer can terminate them.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

22. The OSHA regulation, when it is issued, wil not require the employer to mandate vaccination.

It will require the employer to mandate vaccination or regular testing.

Federal employees and contractors? Different:

Management

Federal Contractors Will Have a Vaccine Mandate Similar to Federal Employees

More details are to come on which contractors will be affected.

SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 03:54 PM ET

Courtney Bublé

President Biden will sign an executive order on Thursday to require federal contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19, alongside their federal employee colleagues.

Biden will give remarks on Thursday evening about further plans to increase vaccinations and decrease the spread of the Delta variant. This comes after the president’s July 29 announcement that onsite federal contractors, as well as federal employees, must attest to their coronavirus vaccination status or be subject to restrictions. Agencies are still in the process of implementing that directive and the contracting community still has questions about it.

During a briefing on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said, “there will be limited exceptions for legally recognized reasons such as disability or religious objections.” She said she expects federal workers to have about 75 days to get completely vaccinated and they could face “progressive disciplinary action” for not getting the shot. It is not clear how, if at all, this will be different for employees versus contractors.

“Each agency is going to work with employees to make sure they understand the benefits of vaccination and how the vaccines are free, easy and widely accessible,” Psaki said. When asked how many federal workers have or have not been vaccinated, she said agencies have been keeping track through the attestation process, but did not provide a number.

Stephanie Rapp-Tully, a partner and federal employment attorney with the firm Tully Rinckey PLLC, told Government Executive on Thursday ahead of the White House briefing that the discipline process was the main thing she is looking out for. She noted federal contractors “don’t necessarily have the same administrative rights and remedies as federal employees.”

{snip}

Full disclosure: IANAL, and I have no expertise in employent law.

[StarfishSaver]

24. True - but an employer still has the right to require vaccinations as a condition of employment

As long as they make reasonable accommodations for employees who have a religious objection to getting vaccinated. Regular testing can be one such accommodation, but is not the only one.

[Bluesaph]

33. Places such as hospitals don't have to

If an employee works for Kaiser they can be tested one day and get Covid the same afternoon. So they risk patients as well as other employees who may then risk more patients.

That is putting others at risk. Kaiser permanente gave their employees until September 30th.

[StarfishSaver]

36. Hospitals are still required to attempt to make reasonable accommodations

What's reasonable is dependent upon the nature of the business. In the case of a hospital, there really is no way to allow an unvaccinated person to work there and maintain the safe and healthy conditions required in a hospital. With some exceptions, any accommodation made for an employee's religious beliefs would be unreasonable in that setting. Therefore, hospitals have much wider discretion to require all employees to be vaccinated without exception (or very limited ones).

[Bluesaph]

42. That was my point

They gave them many months and are testing them 3 x’s a week until the 30th. They have been told their religious exemptions cannot be safely accommodated without putting others at severe risk.

[StarfishSaver]

38. Post deleted - duplicate posted twice

Last edited Fri Sep 10, 2021, 12:46 PM - Edit history (1)

[Owl]

16. Hell no.

[DBoon]

29. most religious exemptions invlve holiday observances, dress, diet ...

... and related matters.

Not behavior which endangers the health of others.

Wearing a veil at work may be protected, spreading Covid isn't.

[MissMillie]

39. I am all for protecting people from religious discrimination

So, I'm not a big fan of the "go somewhere else to work argument." If vaccines are universally mandated, there is nowhere else to go for a job.

I would like to see as many people vaccinated as possible. I just think there's a slippery slope to your argument. The whole "we don't hire Jews (Catholics, Mormons, Atheists, etc) so they can just go work somewhere else" thing bothers me. Religion is indeed a choice but it is a choice that is VERY specifically protected under the First Amendment.

HOWEVER...

I also believe that a lot of folks that are looking for this exemption probably have no religious affiliation whatsoever.

I'd also be willing to bet that these SAME PEOPLE are likely to thwart other mitigation efforts (like masks).


AND... about the only religion I can think of that MIGHT qualify for an exemption (Christian Scientists) has a long history of complying with state mandated immunizations.;

[Mad_Machine76]

41. THANK YOU!!!

This sums it up perfectly!

[milestogo]

44. It falls under the "too dumb to keep myself breathing" exemption.

[pandr32]

45. I agree

Around here where I am residing in my house (Island of Hawaii) there is the lowest average of state citizens vaccinated. Locals are loud and proud about not complying with anything and in the case of the pandemic share how to get religious exemption for themselves and their high school aged kids. They wear their religious exemption like a badge.

[keithbvadu2]

47. Maybe a rel exemption from quarantine for someone with a contagious disease attending their services

Maybe a rel exemption from quarantine for someone with a contagious disease attending their services?

You can't deny my right to worship!

???

Some kids still get mumps, measles, chicken pox.

Bring 'em to church.

[Ms. Toad]

48. There's this little thing called the First Amendment

and the Civil Rights Act that prohibit discrimination based on religion.

Choice or not, it's part of the constitution.

[Jon King]

50. Any exemptions should require testing paid for by the individual.

Its not discrimination if every exemption, regardless of reason, requires frequent testing.

[MichMan]

57. Is the employer permitted to charge an "administrative fee" ?

Maybe something like $500 a test and by the way, it needs to be done weekly.

"Sorry to hear you are taking home a lot less than minimum wage now"

[UGADawg]

51. The Atlanta Catholic Bishop has ordered priests to............

not grant Religious exemptions from vaccination.

[Grown2Hate]

54. OOH, while we're at it, I need a religious exemption to allow

me to murder. My son has been super rebellious lately and not respecting my authority, so I'm required by Deutoronomy to stone him to death. K, thanks!

[liberal_mama]

56. New York no longer has a religious exemption, but people who took it would have to stay home if

there was an outbreak. If a college student took a religious exemption to avoid getting an MMR vaccine and an outbreak of measles occurred at the school, they would have to stay home from campus until the outbreak was over. I'm not sure how it would work in a workplace.

[CozyMystery]

59. My ex switched the reason for being anti-vac from ...

covid is a hoax to his religion wouldn't allow it. God will protect him. I know he doesn't believe that. And, not to beg the question, but what about everyone else?

He was waiting to be transferred from hospital to rehab. Rehab wouldn't take him w/o at least a test, which he refused for religious reasons. It didn't work. They made him get tested. He doesn't have covid, but is in quarantine at rehab/nursing home for the next 2 weeks.

He still thinks covid is a hoax, despite all evidence to the contrary, including how long he had to wait for a bed after surgery b/c there were so many covid patients in the hospital's rooms.

He is a highly educated man who is an idiot. I've been divorced from him for 35 years (1st husband) for good reasons.

We have been friendly (we don't live in the same state) for the whole time we've been divorced. It's just the way our families work, if there is no good reason not to. I was actually hoping when I spoke with him today that he would have come around. I told him my problems with the vaccination policy in place for Univ of Pitt Med Center (UPMC), and hoped that would help persuade him because patients are in danger there -- covid vaccine not required. I have raised a bit of a fuss about that. Since ex says I am the love of his life, I thought he'd care. Nope, covid is still a hoax even if the alleged love of his life gets it during cancer treatment. Which would be about the only way I could get it since I never see anyone but medical personnel and my fully vaccinated daughter who wears 2 masks whenever she leaves the house (KN95 & surgical) and only goes to work (her grad school courses are online) and to drive me to appointments. Oh and my fully vaccinated husband who also wears masks around me when I see him once a week (we are separated). My daughter works as a graduate assistant in an office of her own. No one in that department is ever around her. I think it is because they don't understand data analysis and because she is polite but doesn't welcome contact with other people at work. They, in turn, knows she doesn't want to bring covid home to me.

She is a great daughter. I honestly don't know how she does all that she does for me, since I can't do much of anything right now (cancer).

[SarcasticSatyr]

60. Religious exemption is pretty much a cop out ...

I can't think of a single mainstream religion that's against vaccination, but I'm sure they'll argue that it's their own personal religious belief system ...

[fescuerescue]

72. The Amish

[LiberalFighter]

61. Yep! Plenty of people are self-employed too.

[LiberalFighter]

62. There are a lot of things in the Bible and other religions

that people are not allowed to practice legally.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

64. There is biblical precedent for wearing a mask to protect others...and isolation/quarantine.

Link to tweet

[Buckeye_Democrat]

65. I completely agree with you!

[David__77]

70. I think many employers would grant requested exemptions without question.

…