Posted on 01/04/2022 12:46:34 PM PST by Fury
"Our nation asks the men and women in our military to serve, suffer, and sacrifice. But we do not ask them to lay aside their citizenry and give up the very rights they have sworn to protect…."
Read the order. Disgusting what the Navy was doing.
FYI
Some Plaintiffs were told by their chains of command that if their religious accommodations were approved, they would lose their SEAL Tridents.21 Others will lose their Tridents merely for requesting the exemption (emphasis added).
Disgusting.
What happens when the government is turned over to Communists for 15 of the past 30 years.
Part of the beauty of teaching warriors not just to kill but to think independently is that their superiors can no longer rely on, “Because I said so!” or threats of discipline to make the warrior obey. Too bad so many in senior positions have either forgotten or never had that kind of situational awareness.
It isn’t just the navy, it’s all branches under the command of the president and his determination of the required use of the vaccines to continue world wide qualification. But the reasoning for the, so called, religious beliefs, have nothing to do with the consideration of the safety of the vaccines.
Representing the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant branches of Christianity, Plaintiffs object to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine based on their religious beliefs. These beliefs fall into the following categories: (1) opposition to abortion and the use of aborted fetal cell lines in development of the vaccine; (2) belief that modifying one’s body is an affront to the Creator; (3) direct, divine instruction not to receive the vaccine; and (4) opposition to injecting trace amounts of animal cells into one’s body. Plaintiffs’ beliefs about the vaccine are undisputedly sincere, and it is not the role of this Court to determine their truthfulness or accuracy.
Many of these points have nothing to do with religion. According to Dr. Jerry Lawler of Nebraska Medicine:
“...the COVID-19 vaccines do not contain any aborted fetal cells. However, fetal cell lines – cells grown in a laboratory based on aborted fetal cells collected generations ago – were used in testing during research and development of the mRNA vaccines, and during production of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.”
“It is true that decades ago, scientists decided to use fetal tissue to start the cell lines we use to test drugs today. However, the description of ongoing modern fetal tissue harvesting to create vaccines is dishonest sensationalism.”
And the Vatican has clear the use of the vaccines so the Catholics in the suit have no representation.
Belief that modifying one’s body is an affront to the Creator is a stretch. That would mean no hair cutting, wisdom teeth pulled, no circumcision, not even dying of hair. And that leads to surgeries or cutting fingernails. All are body modifications. Then there’s tattoos.
Divine instruction not to receive the vaccine? That’s an opinion and not a provable fact.
Opposition to injecting trace amounts of animal cells into one’s body.
The following vaccines used are made by growing the vaccine viruses in fetal cells:
Varicella (chickenpox) vaccines
Hepatitis A vaccines (including Twinrix and the travel vaccine Vivaxim, which protects against typhoid and hepatitis A)
Rubella vaccines (given as measles, mumps, rubella and measles, mumps, rubella, varicella)
One rabies vaccine (Imovax Rabies)
One shingles vaccine (Zostavax II)
A majority of people in the US have already received these injections.
So the effort not to receive the vaccines appears to have no validity to it’s efforts. It has the appearance of using a ploy to opt out. But the ploy does not match the reasoning for the desire not to receive the vaccine because it may not be safe. That is dishonest.
wy69
That’s gonna take some time to go thru and read, but far I can tell, this injunction only affects the Seals being affected, not the entire military, unless someone can point out where that distinction is made.
So the effort not to receive the vaccines appears to have no validity to it’s efforts. It has the appearance of using a ploy to opt out. But the ploy does not match the reasoning for the desire not to receive the vaccine because it may not be safe. That is dishonest.
It's variable and as you noted, safety may not be an adequate justification, but there may be others. Example - Someone could have taken the RabAvert rabies vaccine pre-exposure and that is not developed, tested or produced with fetal cells from an elective abortion. The same for Flucelvax Quadrivalent - no fetal cells from an elective abortion used.
And it's quite possible that people's beliefs change over time. Someone may have received a MMR vaccine when they were young and under their parent's direction. It would seem unreasonable to conclude that because of that, a person has no ability to claim a religious exemption later in life when they have agency.
I do believe that:
(1) opposition to abortion and the use of aborted fetal cell lines in development of the vaccine"
could very well be a legitimate justification for a religious exemption, so your statement of:
And the Vatican has clear the use of the vaccines so the Catholics in the suit have no representation is something I would disagree with.
The law pertaining to exemptions for vaccinations as it stands specifies "deeply held religious and spiritual beliefs". The Archbishop for the Military Services noted in his "Statement on Coronavirus Vaccines and the Sanctity of Conscience:
"Accordingly, no one should be forced to receive a COVID-19 vaccine if it would violate the sanctity of his or her conscience."
- see https://files.milarch.org/archbishop/abp-statement-on-covid19-vaccines-and-conscience-12oct2021.pdf
I guess the question is - what is "deeply held"? Organizations that try to conclude beliefs are not deeply held, absent obvious fraud or misrepresentation, I believe are on perilous grounds, if reasonable accommodations can be made.
Your are correct, sir.
We don’t seem to want warriors. The political establishment and the senior officers (politicians in uniforms) want WOKERS.
Wokers don’t win wars. Warriors do.
Since when is faith based on “fact” as seen by a third party? Religion is not merely a series of legalisms, and even if it may be viewed as such, the specifics are determined by religious scholars.
If a “vaccine” (and none of these are) are tainted by a corrupt process, or the company tests for safety based on corrupt processes, then I can see how a claim to religious exemption is valid.
Otherwise we might as well put all religions on trial, based on the “fact” of the “Big Bang” obviating the existence of the Creator.
“And the Vatican has cleared the use of the vaccines so the Catholics in the suit have no representation is something I would disagree with.” And you’ll notice they are not saying they won’t take it because it isn’t safe. That’s already been decided and they have no horse in that race.
If the heads of the church the members profess and using to determine the use of the vaccine has made it clear they have no problem and that many of their clergy have been vaxxed with its approval, then how can they claim representation of the church they profess and are using religious beliefs that don’t exist as determined by the law they are using or the one the church has decided upon?
“if reasonable accommodations can be made.
And they can be. But the point of religion in the military has been very questionable for many years as it is inconsistent with the teachings of most churches. Over my time the members have never used religion before to offset their requirement to serving as if they are not vaxxed they are a risk according to the determinations of their superiors. And if they are not WW qualified, they will be separated as today’s military deploys. But they signed a contract that declared their acceptance of the situation at first enlistment and most had the opportunity to not re-enlist so they should honor it. They made the commitment. And now the only problem with their leaving is their misrepresentation of the duty commitments they had previously made contractual.
It’s very obvious to me that until someone figures out a vax that is proven completely safe and actually works for something other than a painkiller, then the military not deploying people is going to erase the effectiveness of the mission and will cause a lot of wasted money and time to train people, along with keeping them and others alive, that can opt out for reasons other than making the effort to complete the task they signed up for. And if they didn’t do their research, they just cost the taxpayers money and put them at risk unless they are running from the commitment in my mind.
It carbons being in a union. And a union will not work in the military. It is based upon command and control and if the lower ranks can make the presiding decisions for the commanders, who’s in control? And that slope will get slippery to the point of being non-usable. That’s why the system is set up that way. But this is one way to destroy it.
wy69
During the Kenyanesian Usurpation a concerted effort was made to purge the warriors.
“If a “vaccine” (and none of these are) are tainted by a corrupt process, or the company tests for safety based on corrupt processes, then I can see how a claim to religious exemption is valid.”
The same process has been used in many other vaccines and there has been no complaint that I know of. And a lot of their complaint is based upon the use of cells in the current vaccines. The cells to develope the vaccines that set the original process in action haven’t been used for years. These vaccines do not have aborted cells in them.
“No, the COVID-19 vaccines do not contain any aborted fetal cells.”
wy69
“Since when is faith based on “fact” as seen by a third party?”
All of this is based upon the validity of proof in courts by a third party. And that’s what makes the process invalid using our current system of justice. And if some of the churches, like the catholic church, didn’t determine the vax non-religious, then how can a judge even without the process of facts do anything about it?
wy69
“Your are correct, sir.”
At the moment. The term precedence comes into effect and it is defined as “the order to be ceremonially observed by people of different rank, according to an acknowledged or legally determined system.” And at the moment, there are more than one system being used to determine that precedence.
If they can use court cases from 200 years ago to determine cases, then less than a year is well within reach.
wy69
That is true. They systematically purged any senior officers who weren’t totally on board with their politics. This was done without regard to the long term consequences to the nation.
We will pay a huge price for permitting this kind of ideological cleansing and the promoting of wokeness in our military.
You haven't paid attention to the debate -- and that's a ridiculous argument aside from your ignorance of the debate.
Sounds like your paradigm of the process is "validity of proof" using legalistic "scientific" facts to refute religion, and that's the whole point. There must be a reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs and believers, and that means it's reasonable to seek a religious exemption.
It's intransigent modalities such as yours that inevitably result in this:
Federal Agency to Compile List of Employees Who Seek Religious Exemptions From COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
https://www.theepochtimes.com/federal-agency-to-compile-list-of-employees-who-seek-religious-exemptions-from-covid-19-vaccine-mandate_4209042.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=TheLibertyDaily
“Sounds like your paradigm of the process is “validity of proof” using legalistic “scientific” facts to refute religion, and that’s the whole point. There must be a reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs and believers, and that means it’s reasonable to seek a religious exemption.”
“...the Navy put out its updated guidance that sailors who fail to follow the lawful order to be vaccinated will be separated. But any sailor who refused to be vaccinated but changed their mind can remain in the military.
“In order to ensure a fully vaccinated force, U.S. Navy policy is, first, that all Navy service members receive the vaccine as directed and, second, that any who refuse the vaccine be processed for separation at the earliest possible opportunity,” said Vice Adm. John B. Nowell, Jr., the chief of naval personnel.
As of last week, the Navy had 5,731 unvaccinated sailors, including 2,705 religious exemption requests. But the Navy has not granted any of the religious exemption requests that have been reviewed. Sailors will not be discharged while their requests are pending.”
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/15/politics/navy-covid-vaccine-sailors-discharging/index.html
I spent a lot of years in the system involving multiple branches. Since this thread concerns navy, you’ll notice that 47%, or almost half of the sailors refusing the vaccine were not going through religious exemptions.
For those using the religious exemption, here’s a statement by R. Davis Younts, the attorney for the navy seals:
“My clients believe that the usage of fetal cell lines derived from abortions in the testing and development of any medical treatment is wrong,” Younts said at the time. “Interestingly, the COVID-19 vaccines have caused many individuals to learn about this unethical practice for the first time and they intend to take a stand against this practice in the future.”
While fetal cell lines were used to develop COVID-19 vaccines, they came from abortions dating from 1973 and 1985. No abortions are being carried out to get the fetal cells needed for the vaccines and there are no aborted fetal cells in the vaccines themselves.
Some fetal cell lines were also used to develop in part more than a dozen other vaccines that service members are required to take during basic training against diseases such as rubella, chickenpox, and Hepatitis A, but those vaccines have not been subject to the same outcry about religious freedoms.”
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-seals-covid-19-vaccine-religious-exemption/
So, since there are not cells in the covid vaccines, and there hasn’t been any problem with other vaccines they have taken, then why this problem? If they are worried about being injected with aborted human animal cells, they should have done more research as complaining about this, which they don’t have the right information on and continuing after they do when it is inconsistent with their complaint, then what’s the problem?
And since the determination of using a religious exemption which doesn’t apply here due to the lack of animal abortion cells, is just theater. If they want to complain about refusing for their first amendment rights, go for it. That would be honest and direct to the point. They don’t want to receive the vaccine, and I am guessing here, because it’s dangerous. I don’t disagree. But they signed the contract and refusing to not take it lines them up for an article 92 discharge. Not that you didn’t get the vaccine, but you refused the order to get it. This is how the military thinks. And the military is governed by the federal government which has a lot vested in the use of the vaccines...like their job.
“...a reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs and believers...”
The military isn’t interested in beliefs that are contrary to command. Just the completion of the mission. Religion in the military walks a fine line with the service needs. And it has to bow. There is no way to prove faith in a court environment.
wy69
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.