Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Religious Exemption


Edgarcito

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

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

 

Well, it matters to me and it seems to matter to those other members who are trying to puzzle out what you are trying to say.

 

But if you don't want to cite what you claim the 'mandate crowd' are saying, then that's up to you.

 

 

But why would you assume that objectivity would be involved in any compromise about subjective matters of faith?

 

Objective matters require evidence and matters of faith are evidence free, remember?

 

Chalk and cheese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodbye Jesus
21 minutes ago, pantheory said:

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.

 

 

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

 

"As a practicing Catholic, I think the moral balance of indirectly benefitting from an abortion that occurred 50 years ago in order to take a vaccine that will prevent further death in the community is a no-brainer – especially considering that so many of the over 620,000 American deaths have occurred in the most vulnerable and marginalized in our society. We need to focus on saving lives right now. We need to care for our neighbors. 

The Vatican and bishops agree. The Vatican has issued clear guidance that permits Roman Catholics in good faith to receive COVID-19 vaccines that use fetal cell lines in development or production. Read the Vatican's comments on the morality of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. "

 

The Catholics would rather not lose members of the flock. I guess the fundys dont mind thinning their own herd. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 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.

 

"Give me a big mac and fries....but I dont want to defile my body with that covid vaccine." (haha)

 

I think there was a "mark of the beast" type objection as well...except they dont stab you in the forehead or the hand with a syringe....just the arm. 

 

Hope you got your shots...I got mine. :) 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

"Give me a big mac and fries....but I dont want to defile my body with that covid vaccine." (haha)

 

I think there was a "mark of the beast" type objection as well...except they dont stab you in the forehead or the hand with a syringe....just the arm. 

 

Hope you got your shots...I got mine. :) 

 

Lol, I'm opposed primarily because of the lack of trust....go figure.  When they politicized the shot, they lost me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

But why would you assume that objectivity would be involved in any compromise about subjective matters of faith?

 

Objective matters require evidence and matters of faith are evidence free, remember?

 

Chalk and cheese.

Well, even within different denominations, there exists compromise of the expression of subjectivity.  Assuming this to be no different, just different issues at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

 

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

 

"As a practicing Catholic, I think the moral balance of indirectly benefitting from an abortion that occurred 50 years ago in order to take a vaccine that will prevent further death in the community is a no-brainer – especially considering that so many of the over 620,000 American deaths have occurred in the most vulnerable and marginalized in our society. We need to focus on saving lives right now. We need to care for our neighbors. 

The Vatican and bishops agree. The Vatican has issued clear guidance that permits Roman Catholics in good faith to receive COVID-19 vaccines that use fetal cell lines in development or production. Read the Vatican's comments on the morality of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. "

 

The Catholics would rather not lose members of the flock. I guess the fundys dont mind thinning their own herd. 

 

 

That was the point earlier; what do fetal cells have to do with the US vaccine mandate? It appears you have explained it. At least some vaccines have used aborted fetal cells in vaccine development, but not the COVID vaccines. Cell lines more than 30 years old were used. So that the assertion of many aborted fetuses is not a valid argument against the mandate or getting shots.  But fetal cells from several sources were used in the testing of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine which is only a minor player in the US vaccine program.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Well, even within different denominations, there exists compromise of the expression of subjectivity.  Assuming this to be no different, just different issues at hand.

 

 

 

Because there is nothing objective within the subjective beliefs of different denominations any compromise they come to does not involve objectivity.

 

They are simply compromising over subjective matters of faith.

 

So your assumption is incorrect.

 

 

The objective and the subjective are categorically different.

 

Chalk and cheese.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
5 hours 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.....  

Am I to understand that you are essentially arguing subjective opinion should carry the same weight as scientific evidence in the debate over the individual versus the collective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

 

Because there is nothing objective within the subjective beliefs of different denominations any compromise they come to does not involve objectivity.

 

They are simply compromising over subjective matters of faith.

 

So your assumption is incorrect.

 

 

The objective and the subjective are categorically different.

 

Chalk and cheese.

 

 

 

No, at some point we must translate our subjective into objective.  An example would be the order of service.  One person might want three hymns, a prayer, and then communion.  Some other person might want communion, a prayer, and two hymns.  The service must end in objective compromise despite subjective faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Am I to understand that you are essentially arguing subjective opinion should carry the same weight as scientific evidence in the debate over the individual versus the collective?

Yes, given scientific evidence can't answer some very important questions to date....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
26 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Yes, given scientific evidence can't answer some very important questions to date....

Neither can subjective opinion.  But science has a demonstrable record of peer review and self-correction.  Opinion seems more resistant to change.  Further, what science purports, it can also support.  This means that it is more likely to be "true" than some random guy's opinion. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No, at some point we must translate our subjective into objective.  An example would be the order of service.  One person might want three hymns, a prayer, and then communion.  Some other person might want communion, a prayer, and two hymns.  The service must end in objective compromise despite subjective faith.

 

False.  

 

The order of service, communion, prayer, hymns and anything you can name that has to do with religion ultimately derives from subjective belief.

 

The act of making a choice about any of the above does not translate any of them into objective facts.

 

They remain the products of subjective beliefs until those beliefs can be supported by evidence.

 

Then and only then does a subjective belief become an objective fact.

 

That is why all of the above are acts of FAITH.

 

When something is not supported by evidence you believe it by faith.

 

When something is supported by evidence you do not need to believe it by faith.

 

The subjective (chalk) is not the objective (cheese).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

False.  

 

The order of service, communion, prayer, hymns and anything you can name that has to do with religion ultimately derives from subjective belief.

 

The act of making a choice about any of the above does not translate any of them into objective facts.

 

They remain the products of subjective beliefs until those beliefs can be supported by evidence.

 

Then and only then does a subjective belief become an objective fact.

 

That is why all of the above are acts of FAITH.

 

When something is not supported by evidence you believe it by faith.

 

When something is supported by evidence you do not need to believe it by faith.

 

The subjective (chalk) is not the objective (cheese).

 

 

Who said anything about subjective facts?   Good god sir....chill already.  The objective order in this case is an expression of subjective faith and compromise.  Quit attempting to make it all or none...which is likely is, but you can't define it with any certainty anyhow....  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Neither can subjective opinion.  But science has a demonstrable record of peer review and self-correction.  Opinion seems more resistant to change.  Further, what science purports, it can also support.  This means that it is more likely to be "true" than some random guy's opinion. 

See Dr. Fauci for dispensation of science...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Who said anything about subjective facts?   Good god sir....chill already.  The objective order in this case is an expression of subjective faith and compromise.  Quit attempting to make it all or none...which is likely is, but you can't define it with any certainty anyhow....  

 

'Is it real?' and 'Is it true?' are the only questions worth asking in this life.

 

They are both best answered with objective evidence, not subjective faith or personal opinion.

 

Much as the RedNeckProfessor has recommended.

 

In comparison, questions about the choice of hymn, the order of service or how to serve the communion host are just so much irrelevance.

 

They answer nothing about truth and reality, they solve nothing and they lead us nowhere.

 

 

 

 

My studied response to all such irrelevance is the same one that Tommy Lee Jones gave to Harrison Ford in the tunnel, under the dam.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

See Dr. Fauci for dispensation of science...

 

Hi Edgarcito,  Both the religious and non-religious folk should realize that what Dr. Fauci says is not science, it's his opinion of the science involved and what he believes should be done concerning his knowledge and opinions. Many doctors have disagreed with his decisions. Medical doctors, as well as many or most scientists,  work from knowledge and facts, as well as knowledge of theory etc., to come to conclusions which are sometimes wrong, or not the best conclusions or decisions. The point of this is that science, unlike religion, is self correcting over maybe a century or so. Religion does march differently over time, such as the Catholic church via the Pope, but very few religions change their core beliefs over time.

 

Bad science (some science theory) is self correcting over time, but religious beliefs hurt as many or more people than it helps IMO. Imagine how many people have died because of their religious beliefs regarding all of the vaccines available. I'm not a fan of mandates of any kind, but I am a strong advocate against religious stupidity that would be the cause of someone not being vaccinated with a vaccine that could prevent their sickness or death.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

Hi Edgarcito,  Both the religious and non-religious folk should realize that what Dr. Fauci says is not science, it's his opinion of the science involved and what he believes should be done concerning his knowledge and opinions. Many doctors have disagreed with his decisions. Medical doctors, as well as many or most scientists,  work from knowledge and facts, as well as knowledge of theory etc., to come to conclusions which are sometimes wrong, or not the best conclusions or decisions. The point of this is that science, unlike religion, is self correcting over maybe a century or so. Religion does march differently over time, such as the Catholic church via the Pope, but very few religions change their core beliefs over time.

 

Bad science (some science theory) is self correcting over time, but religious beliefs hurt as many or more people than it helps IMO. Imagine how many people have died because of their religious beliefs regarding all of the vaccines available. I'm not a fan of mandates of any kind, but I am a strong advocate against religious stupidity that would be the cause of someone not being vaccinated with a vaccine that could prevent their sickness or death.

 

 

The politicization killed many people, the evolving science killed many, the recommendations.  I really don't think I have seen any dissenting opinions on the mainstream media outside of the party line.  Fauci et. al are still there, still the face.

 

  I'm not against science.  My Dad did science, I do science.  I am pro vaccine actually.   I can't accept something created and injected in my body from crooks, people I don't trust.  I DO trust science.  I don't in this case.  It's not religious for me but I do support religious exemption.  

 

Thanks for the comment.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The politicization killed many people, the evolving science killed many, the recommendations.  I really don't think I have seen any dissenting opinions on the mainstream media outside of the party line.  Fauci et. al are still there, still the face.

 

  I'm not against science.  My Dad did science, I do science.  I am pro vaccine actually.   I can't accept something created and injected in my body from crooks, people I don't trust.  I DO trust science.  I don't in this case.  It's not religious for me but I do support religious exemption.  

 

Thanks for the comment.

 

 

Yeah, unless you research it, you will hear very few dissenting ideas about the handling of the pandemic. I think vaccinations should be voluntary. A federal mandate means little if vaccinations are in the jurisdiction of the states.  Yeah, I would support some religious exemptions, but let's say that a child needs an operation of some kind to live but his parents religion forbids it, then I think the state should step in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

See Dr. Fauci for dispensation of science...

So, you don't trust science because there's one single scientist you don't like?  Damn, son, wait 'til you hear about pedophile pastors...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

The subjective (chalk) is not the objective (cheese).

Cheese can become chalky if the acidity is too high.  The proper pH is critical during the curdling phase of the process; because the goal is for just the right amount of calcium bonds to degrade for the curds to form.  If too many bonds degrade, then the proteins will not break down properly and the end result will be overly acidic, chalky cheese.

 

Science, bitches, keeping your cheese separate from your chalk.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2021 at 1:08 PM, Edgarcito said:

 I can't accept something created and injected in my body from crooks, people I don't trust. 

 

 

 

I have no idea who makes most of the stuff I put in my body (medicine, food, drink). If it's from the medical community it must be crooked, though. Except for all other medications, some of which also come from Pfizer, Moderna, J&J. Those medications are AOK. As a matter of fact, any medications produced prior to 2020 are AOK, and any non-covid vaccines manufactured prior to and after 2020 are AOK. It's just those covid vaccines that we dont trust. 

 

Dr. Fauci, in fact, upstanding citizen in the doctoring world for like 50 years, prior to being the bringer of bad news to the president in 2020, suddenly is evil and sinister to a group of people who are so averse to 'change' that they just deny reality altogether. The CDC and WHO, also agencies that nobody pays any mind to for the most part before covid, boom, 2020, instantly become evil doers. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2021 at 1:08 PM, Edgarcito said:

The politicization killed many people, the evolving science killed many, the recommendations.  I really don't think I have seen any dissenting opinions on the mainstream media outside of the party line.  Fauci et. al are still there, still the face.

 

  I'm not against science.  My Dad did science, I do science.  I am pro vaccine actually.   I can't accept something created and injected in my body from crooks, people I don't trust.  I DO trust science.  I don't in this case.  It's not religious for me but I do support religious exemption.  

 

Thanks for the comment.

 

 

     Why don't you trust this vaccine specifically?  I've had a full dose of Pfizer.  Everyone I know has had a full dose of one of the big three.  We've all had the side-effects to varying degree.  I've recently taken the first shot of the shingles vaccine and, so far, it was much worse than either of the two covid shots so I'm not looking forward to the second shot of that one.

 

     What makes you trust the virus more?  Are you of a mind that you simply will not get it?  Or do you think you will be a mild case (my aunt was one that was asymptomatic and to this day doesn't believe she had it in spite of the positive tests and nearly everyone else on that side of my family in her proximity coming down with it)?  I suppose this is up to you to simply get the virus, and let the chips fall where they may, but it's another issue when you may well pass it along to someone else (like it appears my aunt did and my other aunt, her sister, did die not long after she was infected and "recovered" since she wasn't fully recovered from an earlier surgery).

 

     Anyhow, there's nothing in the bible about not getting vaccinated.  It actually says a few things about removing yourself from society if you find yourself infected and staying away until you're clean again.  Maybe isolate or get the shots.

 

          mwc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, mwc said:

Why don't you trust this vaccine specifically?

I'm convinced it's a purely political/religious stance in every instance. The numbers are in and the safety and efficacy of the vaccines are undeniable unless overridden by political/religious agenda.

 

I have one of "those" neighbors who unsurprisingly caught COVID and continued to test positive for two months. A month later she was still unable to take her daily walks and was still having trouble breathing. When asked if she might not now get the vaccine she snapped to fiery attention and exclaimed, "NO! The vaccine has side effects!"

 

All you can do is shake your head and laugh.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/21/coronavirus-texas-vaccinated-deaths/

 

"Of the 8,787 people who have died in Texas due to COVID-19 since early February, at least 43 were fully vaccinated, the Texas Department of State Health Services said.

That means 99.5% of people who died due to COVID-19 in Texas from Feb. 8 to July 14 were unvaccinated, while 0.5% were the result of “breakthrough infections,” which DSHS defines as people who contracted the virus two weeks after being fully vaccinated."

 

According to the article 75% of the 43 vaccinated people who died of covid were already fighting an  underlying condition like heart disease, lung disease, cancer. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, midniterider said:

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/21/coronavirus-texas-vaccinated-deaths/

 

"Of the 8,787 people who have died in Texas due to COVID-19 since early February, at least 43 were fully vaccinated, the Texas Department of State Health Services said.

That means 99.5% of people who died due to COVID-19 in Texas from Feb. 8 to July 14 were unvaccinated, while 0.5% were the result of “breakthrough infections,” which DSHS defines as people who contracted the virus two weeks after being fully vaccinated."

 

According to the article 75% of the 43 vaccinated people who died of covid were already fighting an  underlying condition like heart disease, lung disease, cancer. 

 

 

 

 

Also, I would wonder how long after their second vaccination the people who died got sick. It takes at least a couple of weeks to have full immunity, but maybe much longer for people with a compromised immune system, if at all. With underlying serous health conditions like you mentioned, the people might have died instead from the underlying conditions. If in a autopsy they test positive for COVID, their death would likely be attributed to COVID according to state reporting rules

 

https://www.healthline.com/health/how-long-after-the-second-dose-of-the-covid-vaccine-are-you-immune

  • Like 1
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.