Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Religious Exemption


Edgarcito

Recommended Posts

The Covid vaccine mandate and religious exemption made me think of my conversations here at ExC.  What I am understanding is the mandate crowd is basing religious exemption off of an objective standard....i.e. aborted fetal cells?  I'm thinking an individual should be able to claim religious exemption with no objective stance necessary.  Granted I haven't looked into the arguments at all, but this one hit me broadside and I thought to myself, I have to ask my buddies at ExC.  Hope everyone is well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

The Covid vaccine mandate and religious exemption made me think of my conversations here at ExC.  What I am understanding is the mandate crowd is basing religious exemption off of an objective standard....i.e. aborted fetal cells?  I'm thinking an individual should be able to claim religious exemption with no objective stance necessary.  Granted I haven't looked into the arguments at all, but this one hit me broadside and I thought to myself, I have to ask my buddies at ExC.  Hope everyone is well.

 

It's been awhile Edgarcito, Hope all is well with you. Yeah, I agree with you . As you may recall I am a total atheist and I don't believe such a mandate is constitutional on any grounds, especially when such a mandate is long after peak infection rates. And I also believe in States rights so that such a mandate would be out of federal jurisdiction. But the federal government probably claims jurisdiction based upon the national interest of the entire country. If that argument holds up in court then even small children might have to be vaccinated to protect their parents and other adults. It will be interesting to see if this mandate goes before the Supreme court as to its legality. One would think that Biden was advised that such a mandate would probably hold up in federal courts.

 

The humor of this might be:  How will this mandate be enforced? What will happen to those that don't comply? Will such a court case involve forced vaccinations in general? Might such a mandate be a precedent that could apply to other or future vaccines? Forced vaccinations of juveniles? Science vs. Religion?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

The Covid vaccine mandate and religious exemption made me think of my conversations here at ExC.  What I am understanding is the mandate crowd is basing religious exemption off of an objective standard....i.e. aborted fetal cells?  I'm thinking an individual should be able to claim religious exemption with no objective stance necessary.  Granted I haven't looked into the arguments at all, but this one hit me broadside and I thought to myself, I have to ask my buddies at ExC.  Hope everyone is well.

 

Aren't all religious beliefs subjective anyway?

 

If so, then there is no objective stance for the religious to take.

 

On anything.

 

Let alone an exemption from vaccination.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
14 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 basing religious exemption off of an objective standard....i.e. aborted fetal cells

Who determined that aborted fetal cells was objectively morally wrong?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Aren't all religious beliefs subjective anyway?

 

If so, then there is no objective stance for the religious to take.

 

On anything.

 

Let alone an exemption from vaccination.

 

 

 

 

 

My point.... How may we apply an objective standard to a definition that is patently subjective.  Whoever is approving or disallowing religious exemptions must know more than the rest of us...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Nah.  You've lost me @Edgarcito.  What are you getting at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Nah.  You've lost me @Edgarcito.  What are you getting at?

It's not that difficult....everyone here will admit the Christian God is imaginary....or most of you will.  If I claim Christianity, then the burden of proof is on the one defining my religion as objective.  In other words, you can't disqualify my objection because you can't prove my religion.....  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Who determined that aborted fetal cells was objectively morally wrong?

 

That's a point I didn't realize and/or  overlooked. Yeah, he lost me also. Whet does aborted fetal cells have to do with a vaccination mandate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

That's a point I didn't realize. Yeah, he lost me also. Whet does aborted fetal cells have to do with an abortion mandate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm unaware of the Biblical connection....the argument they are proposing for aborted fetal cells as a valid religious exemption for the vaccine.  I shall inquire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

It's not that difficult....everyone here will admit the Christian God is imaginary....or most of you will.  If I claim Christianity, then the burden of proof is on the one defining my religion as objective.  In other words, you can't disqualify my objection because you can't prove my religion.....  

 

No, many hare are agnostics who question the existence of a Christian God. I think I am the type of atheist you are referring to. We refer to religion as being a subjective belief. Objective means you think you can offer proof for your belief other than your feelings, the feelings, testimonies, visions of others, supposed healings, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm unaware of the Biblical connection....the argument they are proposing for aborted fetal cells as a valid religious exemption for the vaccine.  I shall inquire.

 

Yeah, it seems like you can't understand their position any better than we can understand it. But it seems to me that using aborted fetal cells for science would have little or nothing to do with a vaccination mandate. I would be interested, via your research, in seeing such a logical connection between aborted fetal cells and a vaccination mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

No, many hare are agnostics who question the existence of a Christian God. I think I am the type of atheist you are referring to. We refer to religion as being a subjective belief. Objective means you think you can offer proof for your belief other than your feelings, the feelings, testimonies, visions of others, supposed healings, etc.

That's what I am saying, with respect to Christianity, how may they apply from any standpoint, a disqualification of religious exemption.....as it is subjective.  Thx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Yeah, it seems like you can't understand their position any better than we can understand it. But it seems to me that using aborted fetal cells for science would have little or nothing to do with a vaccination mandate. I would be interested, via your research, in seeing such a logical connection between aborted fetal cells and a vaccination mandate.

Appears to be a pro life discussion....I'll have to delve deeper.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

It's not that difficult....everyone here will admit the Christian God is imaginary....or most of you will.  If I claim Christianity, then the burden of proof is on the one defining my religion as objective.  In other words, you can't disqualify my objection because you can't prove my religion.....  

 

Uh, no.  Wrong and wrong again.

 

 

If a person's religious beliefs are entirely subjective then, by definition, your claimed Christianity is also subjective.

 

No other person can gain access to or prove anything about your subjective thoughts, Ed.

 

 

Furthermore, does the U.S. Constitution require anyone to provide proof or objective evidence for their beliefs?

 

Or does it guarantee them complete freedom of belief without any requirement for proof or objective evidence?

 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

 

If the govt required you to prove or provide objective evidence for your beliefs then that would violate the first amendment.

 

Under the constitution you are free to believe whatever you like, without any requirement to support that belief with proof or objective evidence.

 

 

That's what faith is Ed, belief without proof or evidence.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

That's what I am saying, with respect to Christianity, how may they apply from any standpoint, a disqualification of religious exemption.....as it is subjective.  Thx.

 

Yeah Edgarcity, it could be a pro-life argument, but I think the majority of smarter Christians will probably come up with better arguments than that, such as interfering with a person's blood is against their religion, which I believe is true for at least the Jehovah Witnesses.  And the many smart Christians can do better than ridiculous arguments such a pro-life IMO, concerning the US vaccine mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Uh, no.  Wrong and wrong again.

 

 

If a person's religious beliefs are entirely subjective then, by definition, your claimed Christianity is also subjective.

 

No other person can gain access to or prove anything about your subjective thoughts, Ed.

 

 

Furthermore, does the U.S. Constitution require anyone to provide proof or objective evidence for their beliefs?

 

Or does it guarantee them complete freedom of belief without any requirement for proof or objective evidence?

 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

 

If the govt required you to prove or provide objective evidence for your beliefs then that would violate the first amendment.

 

Under the constitution you are free to believe whatever you like, without any requirement to support that belief with proof or objective evidence.

 

 

That's what faith is Ed, belief without proof or evidence.

 

 

 

 

I think we agree....uncertain why you say I am wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Yeah Edgarcity, it could be a pro-life argument, but I think the smarter Christians will have better arguments than that such as interfering with a person's blood is against their religion, which I believe is true for at least the Jehovah Witnesses.  And the many smart Christians can do better than ridiculous arguments such a pro-life IMO.

Guessing several arguments will end up in the court system....thx.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Uh, no.  Wrong and wrong again.

 

 

If a person's religious beliefs are entirely subjective then, by definition, your claimed Christianity is also subjective.

 

No other person can gain access to or prove anything about your subjective thoughts, Ed.

 

 

Furthermore, does the U.S. Constitution require anyone to provide proof or objective evidence for their beliefs?

 

Or does it guarantee them complete freedom of belief without any requirement for proof or objective evidence?

 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

 

If the govt required you to prove or provide objective evidence for your beliefs then that would violate the first amendment.

 

Under the constitution you are free to believe whatever you like, without any requirement to support that belief with proof or objective evidence.

 

 

That's what faith is Ed, belief without proof or evidence.

 

 

All good stuff Walter, but Edgarcito seems to agree with you concerning your detailed points, and other comments here on this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I think we agree....uncertain why you say I am wrong.

 

Because you seem to saying that the 'mandate crowd' has to prove something about a person's religious beliefs.

 

The Covid vaccine mandate and religious exemption made me think of my conversations here at ExC.  What I am understanding is the mandate crowd is basing religious exemption off of an objective standard....i.e. aborted fetal cells?  I'm thinking an individual should be able to claim religious exemption with no objective stance necessary.  Granted I haven't looked into the arguments at all, but this one hit me broadside and I thought to myself, I have to ask my buddies at ExC.  Hope everyone is well.

 

Here's an idea.

 

Instead of us trying to guess what you mean, why don't you give us a link to where the 'mandate crowd' actually spell out what they mean?

 

That way we could just read it and not have to guess what they mean from your understanding of it.

 

(Hint.) Chinese whispers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religious exemption reasoning: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/11/us/covid-vaccine-religion-exemption.html

 

" Some vaccines were developed using fetal cell lines from aborted fetuses, she wrote, citing a remote connection to a practice she finds abhorrent. She quoted a passage from the New Testament: “Let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Because you seem to saying that the 'mandate crowd' has to prove something about a person's religious beliefs.

 

The Covid vaccine mandate and religious exemption made me think of my conversations here at ExC.  What I am understanding is the mandate crowd is basing religious exemption off of an objective standard....i.e. aborted fetal cells?  I'm thinking an individual should be able to claim religious exemption with no objective stance necessary.  Granted I haven't looked into the arguments at all, but this one hit me broadside and I thought to myself, I have to ask my buddies at ExC.  Hope everyone is well.

 

Here's an idea.

 

Instead of us trying to guess what you mean, why don't you give us a link to where the 'mandate crowd' actually spell out what they mean?

 

That way we could just read it and not have to guess what they mean from your understanding of it.

 

(Hint.) Chinese whispers.

It doesn't matter actually, but I assume there needs to be some objective compromise given we traverse the same paths....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Edgarcito said:

It doesn't matter actually, but I assume there needs to be some objective compromise given we traverse the same paths....

to add, It's my own understanding based on my discussions here.....there is no message I am translating....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah midniterider, good point. Because you say you object on religious grounds that's probably not enough. One would probably have to explain in detail, and also their church also would have to hold the same position in an open statement in opposition to required vaccination. I don't think the US mandate will hold up against many formal, challenging arguments, a number of which are constitutional and not religious.

 

Even if the US mandate gets shot down in court I don't think it will hurt Biden much since US public opinion leans in his direction, from what I read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.