Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church Members in California Seeking "Religious Exemption" Forms for Vaccine, Church Saying "Nope."


smac97

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, rongo said:

That was my thought as well. I would never seek for a vaccine exemption, and certainly not a letter from the Church or a local leader to that effect, but there is plenty in LDS teachings and overall Gedankengut that would support one's firmly held beliefs or subjective feelings (e.g., "I really feel strongly like I should/shouldn't . . .). 

The new handbook addition on the Church's policy on vaccinations even ends by saying it is ultimately up to individual conscience. And it is, of course, when all is said and done, and that certainly applies to personal belief, even when it is at odds with the Church's overall orientation on things like vaccines (but not when it clearly is contra-orthodoxy).

California being California, they have done an end run around personal belief by codifying that you must demonstrate a certified, codified historical belief for your church. Ironically, this was one of the main reasons the Brethren had Richard Wilkins write the Proclamation on the Family in the mid 1990s (to begin to establish such a codified historical belief, in writing, on moral issues). Starting with Hawaii, and then California and many other places around the world, the Brethren needed to be able to point to (now nearly 30 year-old written declaration) historical  precedent.

It's no surprise at all that the Church wants neither itself nor its representatives to be embroiled in things like this, so people in California seeking some writ from local leaders are out of luck. We live in such lawless times, that laws, regulations, and decrees from both parties when in power are simply ignored, so this sort of thing comes down to "state roulette" as far as enforcement. Instead of executive order, the president chose to have this be an OSHA regulation, so it will be interesting to see what happens with this in the courts. It will probably face the same fate as the eviction moratorium that was enforced by the CDC (this isn't the first time the Biden administration has tried enforcement through federal agencies rather than laws or executive orders). 


 

Looking at the language of the exemption, I am not sure why people would ask a Bishop to sign anything https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Order-of-the-State-Public-Health-Officer-Health-Care-Worker-Vaccine-Requirement.aspx

"Workers may be exempt from the vaccination requirements under section (1) only upon providing the operator of the facility a declination form, signed by the individual stating either of the following: (1) the worker is declining vaccination based on Religious Beliefs,..."

So it would seem as simple as writing and signing a statement that based on religious beliefs one is declining the vaccine.  Another interesting aspect is that one IS NOT required to show "my religious beliefs teach specifically against covid19 vaccines".

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Vaccination is surprisingly old though done differently throughout the ages. The first record of a mandated vaccination program in the US was George Washington inoculating new recruits in the Revolutionary Army against smallpox. At the time this mean inserting the powdered scabs or pus from a smallpox sore into the person’s body through an incision.

In hindsight it looks like inserting it into the skin instead of via the respiratory system usually resulted in a mild case and built up immunity.

I remember reading that Abigail Adams had her children inoculated. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I can't remember the last time the church spoke so strongly against a practice that members were involved in. 

It didn't even speak out that strongly when so many stakes were getting crazy following Julie Rowe, did they?  They haven't spoken out on DezNat stuff (just with the newsroom in response to an article, but not church leadership speaking against it on its own accord if I'm remembering right).

Silence when members go rogue seems to be more the norm than the exception. That's why this surprised me a bit. 

I don’t see it as being a particularly strong public statement so much as the Church clarifying for its own local leaders how they are to deal with these requests from individual members, with this in-house direction being taken up and publicized by outside media. 
 

But it’s a matter of perception, I suppose. 
 

Added later: The Church routinely instructs its members not to embroil the Church as an institution in politics. This appears to be consistent with that longstanding policy, and thus not out of the ordinary. 
 

Moreover, to affirm a position of neutrality (as the Church is doing here with regard to the matter of vaccination mandates) does not strike me as especially hard-hitting. 
 

And this is not even a Church-wide communication. It just went to local leaders in California. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Isn't personal religious belief sufficient without official Church doctrine to back it?

That probably depends upon jurisdiction.

Oregon, for example, allows any Tom, Rick, or Harriet to act as clergy to marry someone, but they must have some evidence of "ordination," no matter how nebulous. My niece, for example, got an online "ordination" from the Universal Life Church just so she could officiate at her twin brother's wedding. Oregon is perfectly happy with a ULC ordination for that purpose.

It would also depend upon the particular law in question. Does the "religious exemption" statute specify that a "real" clergyman must give it? And then we arrive at the problem of how the State is supposed to certify this. The Federal 1st Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." and so the Feds can't say whether a religion is a religion, or whether its practice requires an official clergyperson to certify anything. Most state constitutions include wording that is identical or similar.

Personally, and I say this as a vaccinated person, I don't believe the US or any state government has the constitutional authority to mandate vaccination for anyone. And for practical matters, since it is clear that vaccination for Covid is no guarantee of immunity from Covid, how can they justify requiring it when it demonstrably doesn't work in many cases?

Note that, absent medical conditions which make it inadvisable, I believe it's stupid to refuse vaccination. It's especially stupid for a Latter-day Saint to give religious grounds for the refusal, given that there is no doctrine whatsoever that would support the refusal. Could one receive personal revelation that one should not be vaccinated? I guess that in that case one could use religious exemption, but it would be someone saying "God told me not to be vaccinated." Which could be used by anyone at all.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see it as being a particularly strong public statement so much as the Church clarifying for its own local leaders how they are to deal with these requests from individual members, with this in-house direction being taken up and publicized by outside media. 
 

But it’s a matter of perception, I suppose. 
 

Added later: The Church routinely instructs its members not to embroil the Church as an institution in politics. This appears to be consistent with that longstanding policy, and thus not out of the ordinary. 
 

Moreover, to affirm a position of neutrality (as the Church is doing here with regard to the matter of vaccination mandates) does not strike me as especially hard-hitting. 
 

And this is not even a Church-wide communication. It just went to local leaders in California. 

I don't see this issue as being on of affirming political neutrality.  But you are right in that this is a matter of perception.  I can understand that you don't see it as unique, while I do.  

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't see this issue as being on of affirming political neutrality.  

Part of it definitely is:
 

“No church official can sign any kind of document supporting the notion that church doctrine/teaching is opposed to vaccination or that the church is opposed to vaccination mandates,” reads a letter sent to all bishops and stake (regional) presidents from the faith’s Area Presidency. “As to the former, the opposite is true [the church not only supports but also encourages vaccination]; as to the latter, the Brethren [top officials] have not taken a position.”

(Emphasis mine for reference.)

The high Church leaders had an opportunity here, if desired, to endorse vaccination mandates; they chose not to. Hence, they affirmed their official neutrality on the matter of mandates. 
 

And the other part is old news, merely a restatement and reminder of a position already taken, this as part of in-house guidance from the area presidency for bishops and stake presidents in California who are encountering requests from members to provide religious exemption forms. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Part of it definitely is:
 

“No church official can sign any kind of document supporting the notion that church doctrine/teaching is opposed to vaccination or that the church is opposed to vaccination mandates,” reads a letter sent to all bishops and stake (regional) presidents from the faith’s Area Presidency. “As to the former, the opposite is true [the church not only supports but also encourages vaccination]; as to the latter, the Brethren [top officials] have not taken a position.”

(Emphasis mine for reference.)

The high Church leaders had an opportunity here, if desired, to endorse vaccination mandates; they chose not to. Hence, they affirmed their official neutrality on the matter of mandates. 
 

And the other part is old news, merely a restatement and reminder of a position already taken, this as part of in-house guidance from the area presidency for bishops and stake presidents in California who are encountering requests from members to provide religious exemption forms. 

I don't believe that neutrality on the matter of mandates is a political issue.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't believe that neutrality on the matter of mandates is a political issue.

Then you must not be following the news. The Biden Administration has created a firestorm in recent days by directing that penalties be imposed through OSHA on businesses that employ more than 100 workers and who do not require vaccinations (or weekly testing) of their workers. Opposition to what some view as overreach has fallen along politically partisan lines (the RNC is filing suit and some Republican governors are defying the order) and SCOTUS may yet be adjudicating the constitutionality of the mandates. 
 

As for the supposed uniqueness or momentousness of what the Church is doing here, I’ll mention again that the Church did not make a public statement regarding what is happening in California. It is merely in-house guidance from the area presidency to local leaders that happened to be picked up  by news media. We might not have even heard about it or be discussing it otherwise. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, provoman said:

Is there a specific form? Freedom from compulsion seems to comport with the teachings of the Church. So does personal accountability.

When I read scripture, at least, I find a more complicated narrative than that. Idealistically, compulsion and strongly worded warnings/condemnations weren’t used. The society after Christ comes is a solid example of a people coming together, individually committing themselves to God and creating a community based on this covenant. So would be the anti-nephi-lehites at conversion with their decisions not to confront the lamanite army. Or Nephi’s people when then left their more murderous brothers. 
But again, these were idealistic communities, as in communities with universal or near universal agreement/compliance of what should occur.

Communities where there was a plurality of beliefs or ideals, you see more of a spectrum of how correct notions or social morals are maintained. Often this is through guidance by leaders and cultural maintenance. But at times where the plurality was seen as causing an unacceptable weight to the Soviety, it included both sharp condemnations and corrections, and or more compulsive measures to protect the larger society from subsections of the community that put them at either moral or physical risk. Examples would include things like Jacob 4, korihor’s movement excusing crime, the king men during capt. moroni’s time, etc. 
 

So to me freedom from compulsion is less so a value in itself or a right. Rather it is a direct result to a more righteous people who are willing to sacrifice and participate in the better good. It’s a state and part of an aspiration not a means in itself. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

 

Link to comment

This is going to sound awful but oh well....

Wondering how many people have thought of just starting some non denominational org and just handing out religious exemptions for a "donation".   They did sell indulgences at one time, likes of tbn had " Love gifts". Just a thought.  Teehee

 

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Emily said:

Hey, I'm all for going totally Biblical with communicable diseases. What do you think? 😁

How about medieval with bells or clappers too? (Though some think this was not to warn away, but because lepers often had weakened voices due to tissue damage and used such to draw attention, others consider they were used for both).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
18 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

So to me freedom from compulsion is less so a value in itself or a right. Rather it is a direct result to a more righteous people who are willing to sacrifice and participate in the better good. It’s a state and part of an aspiration not a means in itself. 

Thank you.

And then there's the whole pesky matter of the 12th Article of Faith:

Quote

Heavenly Father wants us to be good citizens. Being a good citizen means following the laws, or rules, of the places we live. There are many different types of governments and leaders (such as a magistrate, which is another word for a judge). Governments aren’t perfect, but everyone can sustain, or strengthen and support, the government where they live.

There is certainly limited room for civil disobedience when laws and conscience clash, but it's obvious that the prophets do not intend the Church to serve as either shelter or justification for such a conflict in this case.

Personally, I'm still waiting for my religious exemption to ridiculously low speed limits and fortnightly property rates ...

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
On 9/11/2021 at 10:15 PM, Calm said:

Because it saves lives overall and massive amounts of public resources. 

I definitely believe this. I'm vaccinated and I feel that those who don't get vaccinated for superstitious reasons are fools. I understand that to achieve "herd immunity" it is desirable for as many people as possible to be vaccinated. So that those who cannot be vaccinated because of medical reasons have a better chance of not becoming sick from Covid-19.

But when you consider that outlawing tobacco, alcohol, dangerous drugs, driving private cars, and obesity would also save lives overall and massive amounts of public resources, why don't we force people to give those up, too? Oh, that's right, we tried a couple of those, and it didn't work -- do we really want to try Prohibition again? Do we really want the government forcing us to be medicated against our will? Now Covid, and later, then what?

There comes a point when the government has overstepped its bounds and become not a preserver of freedom, but a tyrant. If the government can force you to receive medical treatment against your will, then it can force you into pretty much everything else it wants. Render unto Caesar, and all that. But how can we know when a bloated Caesar demands too much? Perhaps when it can force you to do things like this.

Link to comment

As frustrating as it may be to see the Church not acting in this area, we must remember that the primary role is to save souls and not act in political matters. During His ministry, the Savior tried to stay out of politics and I believe He is having His church do the same thing today. Today's secret combinations are very powerful and we know that if the Church did speak up they would come at it with full force. So, to keep under the radar as long as possible, the Church is keeping quiet, even at the expense of individual liberty. I believe the Lord does not enjoy seeing liberty taken away but understands salvation is even more important.

Link to comment
On 9/12/2021 at 2:01 AM, The Nehor said:

Supreme Court precedent for over 200 years disagrees.

I think the 200 years thing is a bit exaggerated. Someone posted a SCOTUS decision that said it was constitutional to require vaccinations for certain purposes, and it definitely wasn't 200 years ago.

On 9/12/2021 at 2:01 AM, The Nehor said:

Vaccines are virtually never 100% effective. The current smallpox vaccine is at around 95%. The original polio vaccine was just over 90% effective. They still kept the disease from becoming endemic and smallpox is gone and polio is hopefully going to be gone soon.

Vaccination works if enough people are vaccinated. I cheer at the new mandate. I want this pandemic to end. If threatening the death cultists who won’t get vaccinated with losing their jobs makes the little whiny babies eat their vegetables then I say we should do it.

I've said that I agree as many people as possible should get vaccinated. But despite the Supreme Court waving a mandate around, forcing people to be vaccinated is still, in my opinion, wrong.  Has SCOTUS ever been wrong before. Of course it has. A minimal example: Dred Scott.

Would you be willing to help strap someone forcibly to a table so they could be vaccinated? Don't tell me that I'm over-reaching, "Because such a thing could never happen." I seem to recall thousands of US citizens of Japanese ancestry being forcibly incarcerated in concentration camps without due process of law. And SCOTUS was perfectly happy with that, too.

My brother was career USAF, and 10 years into that career they forced him to get a flu shot he did not want, and he had an adverse reaction that was life-threatening. He got a medical discharge and the condition that the shot created is still with him to this day, 40 years later. Under the wrong circumstances the condition could drop him where he stands, so he has to be very careful about his health. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I think the 200 years thing is a bit exaggerated. Someone posted a SCOTUS decision that said it was constitutional to require vaccinations for certain purposes, and it definitely wasn't 200 years ago.

I've said that I agree as many people as possible should get vaccinated. But despite the Supreme Court waving a mandate around, forcing people to be vaccinated is still, in my opinion, wrong.  Has SCOTUS ever been wrong before. Of course it has. A minimal example: Dred Scott.

Would you be willing to help strap someone forcibly to a table so they could be vaccinated? Don't tell me that I'm over-reaching, "Because such a thing could never happen." I seem to recall thousands of US citizens of Japanese ancestry being forcibly incarcerated in concentration camps without due process of law. And SCOTUS was perfectly happy with that, too.

My brother was career USAF, and 10 years into that career they forced him to get a flu shot he did not want, and he had an adverse reaction that was life-threatening. He got a medical discharge and the condition that the shot created is still with him to this day, 40 years later. Under the wrong circumstances the condition could drop him where he stands, so he has to be very careful about his health. 

Aaaah! You are right. I mistyped that. I meant to type 100 years referring to the 1905 case.

And yes, I would be willing to strap someone down to force them to get vaccinated. Comparing forcing someone to take life saving medicine with internment camps is silly. There are already people claiming that being vaccinated makes them Jews in the Third Reich which is sheer idiocy.

 

Germany, 1936

Rabbi: We have learned what the Nazis plan to do next.

(scared muttering)

Rabbi: They are forcing us and everyone else in the country to take medicine that will prevent us from contracting a deadly disease that is ravaging our community

(Outbursts of shock and despair)

Rabbi: There is nothing we can do to stop them. They come tonight. In the future this travesty shall be remembered as the Night of Good Health.

(Lamentations ensue at this horrific injustice)

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And yes, I would be willing to strap someone down to force them to get vaccinated. Comparing forcing someone to take life saving medicine with internment camps is silly. There are already people claiming that being vaccinated makes them Jews in the Third Reich which is sheer idiocy.

Yes, it's an idiotic claim, about making them Jews in the Third Reich. So what?

This doesn't make forcible vaccination any less of a violation of free will, however. You can make all the arguments you want about herd immunity, but herd immunity does not require 100% immunity. And why is it silly to compare forcible vaccination with internment camps? Both are compulsions ordered by government. Just because one involves medication and the other relocation does not break the "compulsion" link. You think using the words "life saving medicine" is a wonderful justification. I do not. 

I seem to recall this scripture:

DC 121:39 - We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

You clearly think that holding people down while they get forcibly vaccinated is not unrighteous dominion. I disagree entirely. 

So there we are.

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...