The opposition is already violent. The question isn't if it's going to be violent, the question is if the violence is going to remain unilateral indefinitely.
Fun story: When I was 17, I finished school before my senior year and decided that I wanted to go on adventure. I didn't really have any purpose but I simply wanted to leave home and explore the world. So I saved up a few thousand dollars from my job and then bought a cheap ass bus ticket for a Greyhound to New York. From where I live, it was noted to be a three-and-a-half day trip.
It was the craziest movie-like trip a person can possibly imagine. The things you see and experience are absolutely wild. You really experience a part of America that almost no one will ever see. Anyway, I digress; around two days in we reached Amish country. At the time, I didn't actually know much about Amish people at all, only the usual stereotypes and such. Here's the thing, though, when you're on a bus for days at a time, personal space and sleep are very precious commodities. You immediately pick up a few tricks and even form a little gang of like-minded individuals.
When we hit Amish country, with what little knowledge I already had, as well as some new information that I had been told, I knew that laying down and pretending to be asleep wouldn't work, because they would have no problem "waking me" up and telling me to move. So, I did the next best thing: when they boarded the bus, I instantly began hitting on the women. Yes, today that would be considered "problematic" — a display of "misogynistic harassment" — but it's not like I was legitimately flirting with them. I just wanted to keep my personal space, that's all. It ended up working like a charm, too. They immediately moved right back up to the front and piled into seats with each other to stay away from the gang in the back.
In retrospect, probably wasn't the "nicest" thing to do; however, I was young and terribly sleep deprived, so desperate times call for desperate measure. You know how it goes.
That entire trip was an adventure of a lifetime. I have so many stories and awesome experiences that happened.
Still no idea why they were using the bus to begin with but apparently it was something they did quite frequently according to people who took the bus often.
If you're on a DOT regulated road, there is no religious exemption for metal spike tractor wheels (you can't use them) and orange triangles on buggies (you have to have one).
I think if the intent is there in 99% of their life, it counts enough.
They aren't movie Amish pretending that technology and the outside world doesn't exist. Most seem to comply to the minimum to coexist with the rest of society and then go home.
Okay, so there was an incident I recall maybe 25 years ago where one omlet drove his metal spiked tractor down a freshly paved asphalt highway, doing roughly a million dollars in damages.
Now he went to jail for that, but then did it again when they fixed the road.
As far as I'm aware there is STILL an order up to this day that if the county sheriffs dept see him on a county road in his lifetime the supervisors want him arrested on sight as a public nusiance.
I think there is an amount of dickishness inherent with being Amish to begin with, so that checks out. Every single one I've met's personality STARTS at "old man who hates everything that isn't exactly his routine" and then goes from there.
But most complied, albeit begrudgingly, with any law or order when they are out in the world.
i remember when I was younger and lived in PA, i would witness "Mennonite Out", which they all went to walmart in their Ford Econoline vans and buy stuff. You would see a guys beard coming around a corner before the rest of him did.
The people who are going to determine whether or not your religious beliefs are "sincerely held" think you're backwards and ignorant for having religious beliefs at all. Doubly so now that they are in conflict with "The Science™"
Do not depend on these religious exemptions holding forever as society further secularizes.
I don't think it will be banned. I think what will happen is that people with explicitly religious beliefs will dwindle toward irrelevance to the point where broader society pay them no heed and will be replaced with an explicitly secular morality with many attributes of a religion but without the same individual protections or state prohibitions.
IOW the trends we see happening right now will continue.
In response, the Amish tried to work with the system and offered alternatives to comply with the state water controls. The bureaucrats responded by seeking a court order “authorizing its agents to inspect the inside of Amish homes as part of an ‘investigation’ into what ‘types of modern technologies and materials’ they might be using” to collect evidence that the Amish’s religious beliefs might be insincerely held.
The county bureaucrats did not stop there. They tried to argue that the “Bible commands the Amish to submit to secular authority,” so of course the Amish don’t understand their own religion and should give in to the county’s interpretation of the Amish faith.
They tried to argue that the “Bible commands the Amish to submit to secular authority,” so of course the Amish don’t understand their own religion and should give in to the county’s interpretation of the Amish faith.
Even this is incorrect.
Caesar is not the head of the church. God is.
These bureaucrat thug Nazis can go fuck themselves.
The render unto Caesar thing is about if it's ok to pay taxes, and it essentially means that it's not worth getting into a shootout over taxes alone while still leaving room to dodge taxes if you're up for it.
It's about the kingdoms of this world are irrelevant, while God's Kingdom is primary.
This would indicate the Amish sincerely hold their beliefs. While people are in their homes trying to prove otherwise, they should sincerely use their guns against the inspectors.
I believe this is what they're referring to: Romans 13:1-10.
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
This is kind of a big "gotcha" in some circles related to adherence to secular law.
Over half of the NT is Paul. Mark is Paul's preaching. Acts is about half Paul, recorded by Luke. Take Paul out and you've little left. John Peter James and Jude are significant, but to remove Paul is to reject the Church that Jesus builds.
It's so crazy when they act like violating your rights is OK as long as you get the choice of which of two rights is violated:
You can either have you freedom of religion violated, or your right against unwarranted searches violated (this case).
You can either have your right against unwarranted searches violated, or you can have your right of free travel violated (TSA).
You can either have your right to free speech, or you can have your right to preserve your life through self defense ("instigating" violence from someone else by saying something mean, then defending yourself from their violence with appropriate force").
They forget that this country was founded on a Lockean "appeal to heaven" (ie. a deliberate revolt against the lawful government to see who God favors by granting them victory).
I'm not sure I'd want to be facing the Amish in such an appeal with such a judge.
This entire is pure propaganda from top to bottom. It's entire purpose is meant to dissuade people from attempting to use and express their constitutional rights and submit to authority — hence why the entire thing is also one giant argument from authority. We are guaranteed certain rights under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964.
You do not need participate in a particular religion to qualify. In the US, we have freedom of religion; it is not "freedom for particular religions." An individual's "sincerely held" religious belief does not have to be part of a particular religion's position on the vaccine to be considered a valid reason for exemption from getting it. This article — as well as those who support similar views — attempt to make the case that because their Church or group doesn't hold particular views, then they themselves must not hold particular views. The government themselves can make a very strong case in this instance specifically because they openly expressed that they were following their church's views. This is a very important thing to note. This is not a case of a single person expressing their "sincerely held belief" but is instead a case of a group attempting to do so — and it's much easier to disprove something when that perspective.
I hope this is making sense? Essentially, they're not arguing from the perspective of an individual but are instead arguing from the perspective of a group following their religions views.
How can anyone claim they have a "sincere belief" when it's more a belief of the religious group they participate in, which they simply follow? That can easily be discredited or raise reasonable doubt by bad actors.
The best advice I can give is that unless absolutely necessary, you do not disclose absolutely any information on what your "sincerely held belief* would be. It's not their business and they have no need to know, unless they're attempting to coerce or manipulate you. No one else besides you gets to determine what your core beliefs are, nor how deeply you believe in them.
I'm aware it's redundant but I'll repeat it again: You're not required to attend a church or any other such thing for this stipulation to apply to you. In the US we have freedom of religion. This means a religion can essentially be anything that you can adequately explain that you practice or believe (if absolutely necessary to explain) and in which you hold your core beliefs. It does not state we have "freedom to specific religions approved by authoritative sources." Even if you're a Christian, your belief does not need to conform to the authoritative "representatives" of Christianity. They do not determine what your "sincerely held" beliefs are simply by virtue of the positions of religious leaders. Your relationship with God, as well as your interpretation, spirituality, and faith, derived from that relationship, are strictly between you and God — no one else.
I can't stress how important these things are to know if you're adamant in your position on the vaccine. Many companies are being scumbag assholes and trying to screw their employees when they attempt to express their right to refuse. When handing in a letter they'll say that they won't accept it and will instead print up a lawyer created form that has numerous questions that was prepared by their HR departments and legal teams. This is a kafka trap to screw you. Do not fall for this. The reason they're doing it is to get you to answer certain questions so they can later use it against you. It's most certainly a type of legalese to trap you so they can fire you without worry, or, at the very least, have a strong case in court against you should you choose to pursue it in court.
If necessary, you can even film their refusal to accept your exemption letter or attempt to coerce you. If they choose to fire you for not filling out their questionnaire — after simultaneously refusing to accept your exemption letter — you will have a strong case in court for discrimination and retaliation. If worse comes to worse, you can also simply fill out only the relevant parts that leave zero risk of them potentially scrutinizing and using your answers against you. You can then write next to it "I do not feel comfortable disclosing that information."
In the end, don't simply take my word for things. If it's important to you then don't be lazy. Do more research on the topic and get a better understanding of your rights before it becomes too late and you're put into a situation where you suddenly have to crash course learn important information. Consult with a lawyer if necessary. There are plenty out there who would likely do it for a low cost or even for free if it's simply a few questions. Send an e-mail to a Civil Rights attorney to get a better grasp on your situation in your area.
Just don't be complacent. Make sure you're well informed and have a full understanding of why this is a sincerely held belief for you. Bookmark studies and data; save authoritative articles; accumulate things that you feel help form the beliefs that you have and then correlate them to yourself spiritually.
To end this, I'm going to post an example of a simple exemption letter that can hopefully help some people. There are many others out there as well. Some people purposely try to go into great detail on their letters, some prefer not potentially providing any information that may be used against them. Personally, I would go with the latter and only do the former if I deem it necessary — but that's just me.
I hope this helps at least one person:
I, ______________________, declare religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I attest to having sincerely held personal religious beliefs which will not permit me to abide by this mandate. Additionally, I am not willing to describe these personal religious beliefs for the reasonable fear that if others have knowledge of them it may engender discrimination against me and/or my family.
I am aware that reasonable accommodations may have to be made regarding this declaration of religious exemption, and am willing to discuss accommodations that would be necessary and reasonable in order to come to an agreement. I will finally also expect this letter to remain confidential, and its contents to only be known to those for whom there is an express need.
Even if you did disclose it, it's not up to them to interpret how you practice your faith. They may try to make an argument from authority, such as: "Well the majority of Christian leaders support the vaccine, so there's no reason for you not to do the same" but where does it say that you have to conform to the mainstream belief of any particular faith? It doesn't.
Still, I'd highly recommend disclosing as little as possible at all times so that you don't somehow "incriminate" (crazy that it has to be put that way) yourself in a way that will be used against you if it comes down to it.
There are a few key things to do:
Remain courteous and polite at all times. Never say more than you have to at any given time, no matter how close you consider your boss or co-workers. This is vital.
Research, research, research. From researching letters and the law, all the way to all the information you can possibly gather about Covid and the vaccine that you feel helped you form your belief. This is more in preparation than anything. Don't get caught off-guard.
Document everything. I do mean everything. You can even record conversations as well if single-party consent is applicable in your State.
Ensure you have proof of delivering your exemption letter. Again, you can record or have them sign a copy. Get creative but make sure you can show that it was delivered. A witness would likely work as well.
To give added "umph" to your letter, get it notarized. The reason I say this is because by getting the letter notarized, you are swearing that the content within is one-hundred percent truth.
Before answering or agreeing to anything be sure to say you'd like some time to think. Use that time to find out what direction they're trying to go.
Overall, just be smart. We can only do what we can do. Assume the worst and hope for the best.
This is correct. Deny their authority outright. However, this will require force and a unified front of people in the thousands. The best way to achieve this is in a religous community. Reality is unintentioally ironic sometimes.
If there's one thing the past two years have taught me, it's that society needs religion. Take it away, and people replace it with something else: something much more sinister, and with no unifying moral code.
I believe that you should qualify for an exemption because you have a deeply held conviction against getting the vaccine. I believe that freedom of religion should be that broad.
I'm not saying it will, but I'm saying it should. And the fact that it doesn't is evidence that our system is broken.
Freedom of religion only applies to things the government doesn't really, really want you to do. No joke. The verbiage the courts use is that it needs to be a "compelling governmental action." Like, wtf?
I've said for a while that freedom of religion only applies if the government doesn't "really, really" want you to do something. That's the only real standard the courts seem to follow.
As evident by this quote in the article:
"...the lower court must apply strict scrutiny, meaning the government must prove that the county regulation serves a compelling governmental interest and that the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. "
"the government must prove that the county regulations serves a compelling governmental interest"
Literally saying that as long as the government interest is "compelling," freedom of religion is null and void.
How can we know if the Amish are sincerely holding their anti-technology views if they aren't posting on instagram and facebook how they're not using technology?
Imagine arguing the Amish do not have sincerely held beliefs.
The Amish.
These are the people who haven't used electricity in 300 years.
I'm pretty sure they are being sincere.
I’m tired of pretending this isn’t going violently
it isnt going violently, stop being a blackpill faggot. faggot
The opposition is already violent. The question isn't if it's going to be violent, the question is if the violence is going to remain unilateral indefinitely.
violence is the whitepill and the answer is to swallow it
Fun story: When I was 17, I finished school before my senior year and decided that I wanted to go on adventure. I didn't really have any purpose but I simply wanted to leave home and explore the world. So I saved up a few thousand dollars from my job and then bought a cheap ass bus ticket for a Greyhound to New York. From where I live, it was noted to be a three-and-a-half day trip.
It was the craziest movie-like trip a person can possibly imagine. The things you see and experience are absolutely wild. You really experience a part of America that almost no one will ever see. Anyway, I digress; around two days in we reached Amish country. At the time, I didn't actually know much about Amish people at all, only the usual stereotypes and such. Here's the thing, though, when you're on a bus for days at a time, personal space and sleep are very precious commodities. You immediately pick up a few tricks and even form a little gang of like-minded individuals.
When we hit Amish country, with what little knowledge I already had, as well as some new information that I had been told, I knew that laying down and pretending to be asleep wouldn't work, because they would have no problem "waking me" up and telling me to move. So, I did the next best thing: when they boarded the bus, I instantly began hitting on the women. Yes, today that would be considered "problematic" — a display of "misogynistic harassment" — but it's not like I was legitimately flirting with them. I just wanted to keep my personal space, that's all. It ended up working like a charm, too. They immediately moved right back up to the front and piled into seats with each other to stay away from the gang in the back.
In retrospect, probably wasn't the "nicest" thing to do; however, I was young and terribly sleep deprived, so desperate times call for desperate measure. You know how it goes.
That entire trip was an adventure of a lifetime. I have so many stories and awesome experiences that happened.
Still no idea why they were using the bus to begin with but apparently it was something they did quite frequently according to people who took the bus often.
Eh.....
It depends on the order.
I know this much:
If you're on a DOT regulated road, there is no religious exemption for metal spike tractor wheels (you can't use them) and orange triangles on buggies (you have to have one).
I think if the intent is there in 99% of their life, it counts enough.
They aren't movie Amish pretending that technology and the outside world doesn't exist. Most seem to comply to the minimum to coexist with the rest of society and then go home.
The bunch I know were dicks about it.
Okay, so there was an incident I recall maybe 25 years ago where one omlet drove his metal spiked tractor down a freshly paved asphalt highway, doing roughly a million dollars in damages.
Now he went to jail for that, but then did it again when they fixed the road.
As far as I'm aware there is STILL an order up to this day that if the county sheriffs dept see him on a county road in his lifetime the supervisors want him arrested on sight as a public nusiance.
I think there is an amount of dickishness inherent with being Amish to begin with, so that checks out. Every single one I've met's personality STARTS at "old man who hates everything that isn't exactly his routine" and then goes from there.
But most complied, albeit begrudgingly, with any law or order when they are out in the world.
Honestly? That's hilarious.
I also see amish vehicles using electric turnsignals on their wagons on the road when they come into town.
certain counties require it in order for them to be on roads. Also those may be Mennonites instead.
mennonites are also pretty cool people.
productive, in touch with nature and reality.
i remember when I was younger and lived in PA, i would witness "Mennonite Out", which they all went to walmart in their Ford Econoline vans and buy stuff. You would see a guys beard coming around a corner before the rest of him did.
there's a mennonite store near here
they have great shit that's all semi-local
they use some, but very sparingly.
The people who are going to determine whether or not your religious beliefs are "sincerely held" think you're backwards and ignorant for having religious beliefs at all. Doubly so now that they are in conflict with "The Science™"
Do not depend on these religious exemptions holding forever as society further secularizes.
I don't think it will be banned. I think what will happen is that people with explicitly religious beliefs will dwindle toward irrelevance to the point where broader society pay them no heed and will be replaced with an explicitly secular morality with many attributes of a religion but without the same individual protections or state prohibitions.
IOW the trends we see happening right now will continue.
Which passage is that inside of?
Watch out for the false prophet. While everyone's focused on the antichrist, the false prophet will fool many.
Read more about the French revolution, or China, or the ussr.
There will be one world religion imposed. Watch.
Its not so much a secular problem with society, as it is the deep and thorough programming of the Progressicve Death Cult. Nitche was right, again.
Nitche? C'mon.
Even this is incorrect.
Caesar is not the head of the church. God is.
These bureaucrat thug Nazis can go fuck themselves.
The render unto Caesar thing is about if it's ok to pay taxes, and it essentially means that it's not worth getting into a shootout over taxes alone while still leaving room to dodge taxes if you're up for it.
Incorrect.
It's about the kingdoms of this world are irrelevant, while God's Kingdom is primary.
This would indicate the Amish sincerely hold their beliefs. While people are in their homes trying to prove otherwise, they should sincerely use their guns against the inspectors.
I believe this is what they're referring to: Romans 13:1-10.
This is kind of a big "gotcha" in some circles related to adherence to secular law.
This is not the only statement on the subject. All need to be considered, and balanced.
Secularists have no business interfering with that.
Not every sect of Christianity has Paul's writings in their version of the Bible.
Those aren't Christians
Mormons excluded, many of them are.
Over half of the NT is Paul. Mark is Paul's preaching. Acts is about half Paul, recorded by Luke. Take Paul out and you've little left. John Peter James and Jude are significant, but to remove Paul is to reject the Church that Jesus builds.
It's so crazy when they act like violating your rights is OK as long as you get the choice of which of two rights is violated:
You can either have you freedom of religion violated, or your right against unwarranted searches violated (this case).
You can either have your right against unwarranted searches violated, or you can have your right of free travel violated (TSA).
You can either have your right to free speech, or you can have your right to preserve your life through self defense ("instigating" violence from someone else by saying something mean, then defending yourself from their violence with appropriate force").
God dammit I fucking hate the government lol
This is the correct response
They forget that this country was founded on a Lockean "appeal to heaven" (ie. a deliberate revolt against the lawful government to see who God favors by granting them victory).
I'm not sure I'd want to be facing the Amish in such an appeal with such a judge.
This entire is pure propaganda from top to bottom. It's entire purpose is meant to dissuade people from attempting to use and express their constitutional rights and submit to authority — hence why the entire thing is also one giant argument from authority. We are guaranteed certain rights under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964.
You do not need participate in a particular religion to qualify. In the US, we have freedom of religion; it is not "freedom for particular religions." An individual's "sincerely held" religious belief does not have to be part of a particular religion's position on the vaccine to be considered a valid reason for exemption from getting it. This article — as well as those who support similar views — attempt to make the case that because their Church or group doesn't hold particular views, then they themselves must not hold particular views. The government themselves can make a very strong case in this instance specifically because they openly expressed that they were following their church's views. This is a very important thing to note. This is not a case of a single person expressing their "sincerely held belief" but is instead a case of a group attempting to do so — and it's much easier to disprove something when that perspective.
I hope this is making sense? Essentially, they're not arguing from the perspective of an individual but are instead arguing from the perspective of a group following their religions views.
How can anyone claim they have a "sincere belief" when it's more a belief of the religious group they participate in, which they simply follow? That can easily be discredited or raise reasonable doubt by bad actors.
The best advice I can give is that unless absolutely necessary, you do not disclose absolutely any information on what your "sincerely held belief* would be. It's not their business and they have no need to know, unless they're attempting to coerce or manipulate you. No one else besides you gets to determine what your core beliefs are, nor how deeply you believe in them.
I'm aware it's redundant but I'll repeat it again: You're not required to attend a church or any other such thing for this stipulation to apply to you. In the US we have freedom of religion. This means a religion can essentially be anything that you can adequately explain that you practice or believe (if absolutely necessary to explain) and in which you hold your core beliefs. It does not state we have "freedom to specific religions approved by authoritative sources." Even if you're a Christian, your belief does not need to conform to the authoritative "representatives" of Christianity. They do not determine what your "sincerely held" beliefs are simply by virtue of the positions of religious leaders. Your relationship with God, as well as your interpretation, spirituality, and faith, derived from that relationship, are strictly between you and God — no one else.
I can't stress how important these things are to know if you're adamant in your position on the vaccine. Many companies are being scumbag assholes and trying to screw their employees when they attempt to express their right to refuse. When handing in a letter they'll say that they won't accept it and will instead print up a lawyer created form that has numerous questions that was prepared by their HR departments and legal teams. This is a kafka trap to screw you. Do not fall for this. The reason they're doing it is to get you to answer certain questions so they can later use it against you. It's most certainly a type of legalese to trap you so they can fire you without worry, or, at the very least, have a strong case in court against you should you choose to pursue it in court.
If necessary, you can even film their refusal to accept your exemption letter or attempt to coerce you. If they choose to fire you for not filling out their questionnaire — after simultaneously refusing to accept your exemption letter — you will have a strong case in court for discrimination and retaliation. If worse comes to worse, you can also simply fill out only the relevant parts that leave zero risk of them potentially scrutinizing and using your answers against you. You can then write next to it "I do not feel comfortable disclosing that information."
In the end, don't simply take my word for things. If it's important to you then don't be lazy. Do more research on the topic and get a better understanding of your rights before it becomes too late and you're put into a situation where you suddenly have to crash course learn important information. Consult with a lawyer if necessary. There are plenty out there who would likely do it for a low cost or even for free if it's simply a few questions. Send an e-mail to a Civil Rights attorney to get a better grasp on your situation in your area.
Just don't be complacent. Make sure you're well informed and have a full understanding of why this is a sincerely held belief for you. Bookmark studies and data; save authoritative articles; accumulate things that you feel help form the beliefs that you have and then correlate them to yourself spiritually.
To end this, I'm going to post an example of a simple exemption letter that can hopefully help some people. There are many others out there as well. Some people purposely try to go into great detail on their letters, some prefer not potentially providing any information that may be used against them. Personally, I would go with the latter and only do the former if I deem it necessary — but that's just me.
I hope this helps at least one person:
I, ______________________, declare religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I attest to having sincerely held personal religious beliefs which will not permit me to abide by this mandate. Additionally, I am not willing to describe these personal religious beliefs for the reasonable fear that if others have knowledge of them it may engender discrimination against me and/or my family.
I am aware that reasonable accommodations may have to be made regarding this declaration of religious exemption, and am willing to discuss accommodations that would be necessary and reasonable in order to come to an agreement. I will finally also expect this letter to remain confidential, and its contents to only be known to those for whom there is an express need.
Even if you did disclose it, it's not up to them to interpret how you practice your faith. They may try to make an argument from authority, such as: "Well the majority of Christian leaders support the vaccine, so there's no reason for you not to do the same" but where does it say that you have to conform to the mainstream belief of any particular faith? It doesn't.
Still, I'd highly recommend disclosing as little as possible at all times so that you don't somehow "incriminate" (crazy that it has to be put that way) yourself in a way that will be used against you if it comes down to it.
There are a few key things to do:
How about stop applying for exemptions? All you're doing is conceding that the government has a right to do this in the first place.
I'm an atheist and I'm perfectly healthy. I don't qualify for any religious or medical exemptions.
I qualify for the You-Can-Inject-My-Cold-Dead-Corpse exemption.
This is correct. Deny their authority outright. However, this will require force and a unified front of people in the thousands. The best way to achieve this is in a religous community. Reality is unintentioally ironic sometimes.
If there's one thing the past two years have taught me, it's that society needs religion. Take it away, and people replace it with something else: something much more sinister, and with no unifying moral code.
I believe that you should qualify for an exemption because you have a deeply held conviction against getting the vaccine. I believe that freedom of religion should be that broad.
Let me know when you figure out how to make that fly with an employer, because I would very much like to continue being employed in the near future.
I'm not saying it will, but I'm saying it should. And the fact that it doesn't is evidence that our system is broken.
Freedom of religion only applies to things the government doesn't really, really want you to do. No joke. The verbiage the courts use is that it needs to be a "compelling governmental action." Like, wtf?
Correct! Sincerely held belief should not have to be religious. Especially when we're talking about an EUA
The regime has outlived its welcome.
The systematically disingenuous left is accusing others of being insincere. Rich.
I've said for a while that freedom of religion only applies if the government doesn't "really, really" want you to do something. That's the only real standard the courts seem to follow.
As evident by this quote in the article:
"...the lower court must apply strict scrutiny, meaning the government must prove that the county regulation serves a compelling governmental interest and that the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. "
Literally saying that as long as the government interest is "compelling," freedom of religion is null and void.
What a clown world.
I think we all know that the 'religious beliefs' argument will never be applied to any religion that falls under the umbrella of Christianity.
SCOTUS overturned and remanded thankfully https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-7028_o758.pdf
Work is mandating this shit. Said last week that exemptions were made, religious and medical.
This week they say they're reviewing the religious ones now. Sincerely held was the targeted phrase.
How can we know if the Amish are sincerely holding their anti-technology views if they aren't posting on instagram and facebook how they're not using technology?
They certainly use 1984 as a training manual