Religious exemption

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: DBCowboy

Wow. More insults and assumption of my character.

Why do I threaten you?

You're usually more insightful than this.

No insults, just observations.

You embrace a collective, Marxist ideology that should scare the sh#t out of every free thinker.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Where on Earth are you getting this information from?

Methinks your eyes are clouded by judgement.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

I'm not the one ignoring the actions of this administration, determioning others faith or spouting about the collective.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not defending the actions of this adminstration on this issue.

I think it's stupid.

I told you I'm a Freedom of Choice person.

I'm not sure why you don't get that.

Why you think I'm onboard with this administration forcing mandates is beyond me.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: TzarChasm

I just need to point out that according to that view, aren't the only people with faith the people who have died?

That says that anyone who is alive is obviously not following their faith and thus not eligible for a religious exemption, doesn't it?

----------------------------------

But I see it another way: the worry about catching a disease is the fear of dying (or at least being handicapped) from it. Otherwise, a disease is only a temporary nuisance. So since the vaccine is said to provide immunity to the disease, the very act of refusing the vaccination tells me that the person is exercising their faith and thus qualifies for a religious exemption simply by virtue of their refusal.

Would you agree that taking the vaccine is in itself an act signifying a lack of faith?

TheRedneck

There's only one reason to be afraid. It's because these devout believers are more convinced of the deadly vaccine than they are of guardian angels protecting the innocent.

On a purely cautionary note, I was reading about religious exemptions to vaccines (not covid, just vaccines in general).

First, there are numerous religious exemptions and they all have different reasoning/justification. Some of these exemptions are getting more traction with authorities than others. (specifying which ones goes beyond the scope of this post).

**Trying to think how to word this next part**

It seems the most successful religious objections are based on the notion that the person objects to having any "foreign substance" injected into their body (there are some other elements to the justifications as well, but that's not the point here). Cutting to the chase...when a person files the paperwork for a religious exemption to the 'vaccine' they could, inadvertently, be setting themselves up to be essentially objecting to 'other' medical procedures in the future (not vaccine related).

So, just using a purely hypothetical example, imagine going in to the hospital for an injury at some point in the future and requiring surgery, and the facility says they can't give you anesthesia because of your previous religious exemption to the 'vaccine'. Or, pain killers. Or, penicillium for an infection.

Second, as most of us have seen, filing a bogus religious exemption comes with some pretty stiff penalties if you are caught and convicted. For one thing, it's a Felony. People may be thinking in the moment about the 'vaccine', but may likely implicate themselves later when it comes to one of the other procedures noted above.

"Hey, wait a minute! You can't operate on me with no anesthesia!! OOPS!"

Just food for thought.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

That is not how it works. I have worked with patients of almost every culture and religion. It is one of the areas where you have to be very careful as a medical practitioner.

Informed consent works both ways. It protects the patient's rights, and it protects the practitioner's license.

There is no one size fits all medical consent. Even if you have a procedure more than once, each time you perform a procedure, you have to provide the patient with medical information that allows them to understand the procedure. They have to be able to verbalize, or show that they understand what they are agreeing to.

If you withhold treatment, or administer treatment based on what you "think" the patient wants, without them agreeing and signing the consent, you set yourself up for a mega lawsuit, and possible loss of your professional license.

Religious beliefs are not the same as religious tenets and practices. Some religions have expectations from their members that instruct them in birth control and allowed, or rejected medical practices. The patient still has the right to choose if they will adhere to those tenets or practices.

It is not uncommon for a member of a particular religion, to accept some tenets and practices, and not adhere to others, by choice.

This has nothing to do with how a hospital or medical professional can or cannot proceed with care. The patient is always the one who must give the consent for care, each time. Unless they can't, then a legally established representative can make that choice.

I have on a rare occasion or two, had to contact the State Attorney's office, in the middle of the night, to ask for legal guidance, on how to proceed, when a informed consent could not be obtained.

Informed consent is taken very seriously, and it is very specific to date and time. A consent you signed last year is not valid for the same or different procedure, this year.

People have the right to what they believe, and they have the right to change what they believe. Even if it goes against what society wants to make the norm.

If God didn't want you to take the vaccine then he wouldn't have allowed them to have been created.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You make a good point. In my example of a possible Christian exemption, I wouldn't allow the pharmaceuticals into my body because I risk not being allowed into heaven and thrown into the pit of fire. That would include any kind as you point out.

I can always repent afterwards though, just sounds like shaky legal ground choosing one over the other then praying for forgiveness. Thanks for the input on the ramifications of choosing a religious exemption.

In a way this has already played out. I remember the story of an Amish girl who had leukemia. Her parents took her to a hospital where she had chemotherapy. The chemo was devastating so the parents and the child together decided they were going to seek alternate treatment.

The hospital sued the parents seeking temporary guardianship of the child. The court ruled that the parents were not found to be unfit so they retained guardianship. An appeals court later decided to grant an attorney, who's also a registered nurse, limited guardianship over Sarah and the power to make medical decisions for her. The court said the beliefs and convictions of her parents can't outweigh the rights of the state to protect the child.

The "rights" of the state outweighed the rights of the parents... The parents took their child and left their home before the state made its decision. Family members will not disclose their location and said they have no plans to return to their home anytime soon.

Post script: Many people leave hospitals and seek alternative treatment without being sued by said hospital. If these people had not been Amish I don't believe the hospital would have sued. When does a hospital have the right to make medical decisions against a patients/parents wishes? They can make recommendations but, to the best of my knowledge, can not force treatment on anyone. Unless, apparently, they happen to be Amish.

a reply to: HilterDayon

I just lost all respect for the Dahlai Lama, wow! That's sad. I thoguht he supposed to be elightened, I guess not.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Don't know why the Dalai Lama is getting one, Surely he can just move on to his next life, then the next and the next.

What does the Dalai Lama say about the afterlife?
The Dalai Lama describes the process of death

“As a Buddhist, I view death as a normal process, a reality that I accept will occur as long as I remain in this earthly existence. Knowing that I cannot escape it, I see no point in worrying about it".
Seems awfully worried to me.

He's leading by example. He wants his followers to get the shot.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

Are you sure there is no agenda? Then why are they forcing it on people, stating that if you don't take this vaccine you don't get to participant in society and have a job? yes, this is going to get worse, why are they doing this? They didn't do this with any of the other vaccinations? In some health care places all they had to do was ask if you got flu shot and if you said yes they accepted it. You didn't need to show proof that you had it, at least they never asked me for proof and no i have never had the flu shot.

yet for some reason they need proof with this vaccine why do you think that is? You say there is no agenda, umm okay!

Lanl is granting religious exemptions…..but the only accommodation available is leave without pay. So yesterday many (100s maybe) people turned in their badges and left the lab.

I'm an orthodox christian, work for a major railroad and just sent off my exemption request. I too am disappointed with my church leaders as none of them are supporting exemptions. We have received prophecies of vaccines and even recent appearances from saints answering prayers about the vaccine...none of this seems to matter to them and this issue has definitely confounded us.

On my exemption form, they never asked what religion I held. They wanted to know what beliefs necessitated the request and then wanted a detailed explanation in support of my beliefs. I spent half a day and typed a four page defense.

Other simple questions on my form were: Have you taken other vaccines? Have you taken these medications (then listed common otc drugs like aspirin)? Is your objection just for the COVID-19 vaccine? These questions made me think they were anticipating the "aborted fetal cells" religious objection which I've always seen as a bit of a red herring and did not include in my defense.

a reply to: monkcaw

I'd like to know what you used in your exemption, if you feel inclined to tell. PM if you like.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

But the selfishness and reasoning to NOT take the vaccine is just selfish.

You want to be a carrier and infect the less genetically sturdy over your priciples that's your perogative.

Every single pharmacy that makes the vaccine as well as every government has stated definitively that the vaccine does not prevent one from spreading the disease. Therefore taking the vaccine does not do what you seem to claim it does and the decision to not take it cannot lead to the consequences you ascribe to it.

Do as you choose, but do not condemn others for doing the same.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TzarChasm

There's only one reason to be afraid. It's because these devout believers are more convinced of the deadly vaccine than they are of guardian angels protecting the innocent.

No one wants to die, but everyone dies. Adam and eve saw to that, not God. We were given life by God Himself, and it is only natural and proper that we should seek to preserve that gift. But as to how we preserve it through faith, Jesus Himself admonished Satan during His temptation that one should not test God.

Matthew 4:5-7

Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

In simple terms, I trust God to handle anything that happens to me despite my best efforts to not have bad things happen to me. I do need to, nor do I wish to trust God while choosing to do something that I know could kill or harm me simply to prove God. If I have a need to make God prove Himself to me by putting myself in danger every so often, that is not faith. It is a demand for proof, which is the opposite of faith.

However, your post brings up another question I have for you: should a person be forced to do something they believe to be dangerous? That doesn't even have religious overtones.

TheRedneck

a reply to: HilterDayon

I think you are making this issue far too complex. The fact is, whether or not religious exemptions are acceptable is a legal issue. Legislation has been passed in several states which has removed the religious exemption reason from refusing vaccines. New York State for example, got rid of their religious exemptions. Then there was a lawsuit. Then the court upheld the opinion that since children are in close contact with others it was totally constitutional to remove the religious exemption.

New York eliminated the religious exemption to vaccine requirements for schoolchildren Thursday, as the nation’s worst measles outbreak in decades prompts states to reconsider giving parents ways to opt out of immunization rules.

The Democrat-led Senate and Assembly voted Thursday to repeal the exemption, which allows parents to cite religious beliefs to forego getting their child the vaccines required for school enrollment.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, signed the measure minutes after the final vote. The law takes effect immediately but will give unvaccinated students up to 30 days after they enter a school to show they’ve had the first dose of each required immunization.

apnews.com...

So I mean, when you vote for people who do stuff like this.... they just keep doing it because they already have your approval. It is only going to get worse and worse if we can't get the reasonable liberals to realize what they are actually doing to this country.

a reply to: HilterDayon
Saline would be used as a placebo in ways of manipulation of this curve that keeps gaining strength...then disappearing cycle that keeps growing new legs.

Saline gives them "confidence" at each interval.