10 ms·

US Destroyer can’t deploy because CO won’t get Covid vaccine, Navy says

83 points by 323 5y ago

codevark 5y ago
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
I don't ever remember having a choice about vaccines when I served. It's the military. Combat readiness and the mission comes before everything else.
- jleyank 5y ago
  People litigate all sorts of things today. One would think that leaving the ship and holding salary and rank would be sufficient. It’s not like he has any future in the service after this bs.
- Arubis 5y ago
  Not a servicemember, but the framing from someone who was: while you're a member of the US armed forces, your body is the property of the US Government.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    Pretty much. It's called "serving" for a reason. It's not about you.
  - gtest 5y ago
    One's religious views and moral views are not property of the gov, and one should act on them.
    - BrandoElFollito 5y ago
      Of course they are. You are in the army because you want to be in the army, together with all the pris and cons. You must be ready to kill someone in a country in Africa (pick anything here) because the govt said so. You know this when you join. You can die there too, and you know that too. This is why I do not particularly care about the military kills in such a war until someone does not celebrate the same way the guy who killed himself serving in mountain rescue, to save someone else.
- invalidname 5y ago
  This is true for every army (served in Israeli army). Everyone gets the shots. No exceptions. If you have a medical reason not to then you can be in the disabled units in the backoffice.
mistrial9 5y ago
- Barrin92 5y ago
  in this case because they're serving in the US military and they need to be combat ready, and the state pays for their expenses. also the claim about current vaccines is wrong. They do lower both risk of infection and transmission.
  - throttledagain2 5y ago
  - drcross 5y ago
    - Barrin92 5y ago
      I do, Fauci says nothing that contradicts this. People with breakthrough infections spread similarly to unvaccinated people, yes. But the majority of vaccinated people do not experience breakthrough infection. And people who are not infected do not spread the disease. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-l...
      - gfodor 5y ago
        Your article is from October. Omicron basically nuked the vaccines’ ability to prevent infection. (It’s not a zero, but it is extremely weakened esp without a recent booster.)
        Barrin92 5y ago
        it's still the case for omnicron. What is the motivation for people to spread this misinformation? https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/31/the-new-omicron-subvariant-is-more-contagious-but-vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-to-spread-it-study-finds.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/31/the-new-omicron-subvariant-i... And mind you even if the impact on transmission rates is relatively small, this has a significant impact on the amount of cases due to the exponential nature of disease spread.
adhesive_wombat 5y ago
What religion disallows the COVID vaccine but not all the others you get when you're in the military? I know Leviticus is curiously specific about some things, but I don't remember that bit.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  Theoretically someone could have a religious awakening after they joined the military. I know someone who had a life saving blood transfusion after a nasty car accident, who later became a JW and now says he regrets the transfusion and would refuse it in the future if he needed another one.
- baphometfan 5y ago
  I work remote for a small firm and so have never grappled with the issue of a religious exemption, but a close friend did at his Federal contractor employer: - Fetal Cell Tissue, apparently there is some use of it in the development pipeline such that quite a few contemporary religions can use that as an out. - Mark of the Beast, given how forceful government have been (varying on location), one could make the argument that this represents the Revelations concept of being forced into some system of submission to Satan in order to live and so it is their duty as good Christians to resist this. Regarding the first point, I’m not sure if any other DOD related vaccines fall into this category but one could argue their religious beliefs came after their initial military indoctrination. Regarding the second point, the existence of a religious exemption somewhat weakens the argument but then again one could claim that the battle against Satan is ongoing and the system incomplete.
  - owlninja 5y ago
    Also regarding Fetal Cell Tissue I think it is used in testing various other common drugs like aspirin, tylenol, ibuprofen etc...
    - onenukecourse 5y ago
      All those drugs existed, approved and became generic before fetal cell research emerged. If one drug manufacturer decides to do FCR on asprin that doesn't invalidate all asprin, just that manufacturer's. For a new product the logic is different. This product exists because of FCR and is forever tainted unless it is recreated using clean room design. Now, you might disagree with this logic, and that's your prerogative. But also irrelevant outside of an honest attempt to persuade a person otherwise. It's their conscious.
dragontamer 5y ago
I got a friend who was forced to take the anthrax vaccine as an enlisted going into Iraq. Anthrax vaccine is well known for pretty severe side effects too. It's not like the COVID-19 vaccine at all. But the military has a long tradition of force protection measures like this. Honestly, this comes off more like some entitled officer thinking they have more sway than they actually do.
- mywacaday 5y ago
  Ireland has has similar problems with malaria vaccine, https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/75-soldiers-suing-over-anti-malaria-drug-lariam-36919501.html https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/75-soldiers-suing... not sure where it ended up.
- xdennis 5y ago
  Mistakes in the past don't justify mistakes in the present.
- pensatoio 5y ago
  You're totally right, but I think there's also something to said for setting new precedent. Status quo rarely changes without disruption.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    So the new precedent would be that you can refuse an order in the military if you think that order might cause you harm? Seems like that might not work out well.
    - pensatoio 5y ago
      I'm not making an argument, I'm simply addressing the parent comment. Perhaps the status quo in question is whether forcing service members to take a vaccine (totally lawful) is justified in this case. Even the CDC director is openly admitting that pushing these brand new vaccines so aggressively was "overly optimistic." Again, not making an argument here, just pointing out that the status quo in the military for _these specific vaccines_ may change as a result of a shifting political landscape, and a lawsuit like this may well be the avenue.
kenhwang 5y ago
I'd like to think this is only an issue during peacetime. During wartime, I would assume the violation would either be ignored or the officer would be immediately court martialed and next in command would take over.
- Someone1234 5y ago
  I'd hope disobeying a direct order from your commander during wartime wouldn't be ignored.
- tootie 5y ago
  He's only still in command due to a judicial ruling temporarily preventing the navy from taking action. He had already been relieved of command but the judge reinstated him. It's doubly sticky because it was a civilian court. Generally speaking the military can issue a lot of orders that are not allowable under civilian law. Like mandatory vaccinations.
babyshake 5y ago
This person should likely not be a CO if they refuse to get the COVID vaccine. They are indicating that they refuse benign orders purely because they have some philosophical objection to them. What kind of example does that set?
- amatecha 5y ago
  I don't think refusal of an injection of a substance into one's body is purely "philosophical" (nor do I think it's reasonable to judge such an injection as purely "benign"). I also think each person should have full agency over their body and what is done to it, and any violation thereof is a pretty fundamental human rights concern. That said, I imagine the military should be able to reassign the CO to a different role/location/etc. (not in a punitive way, but in an accommodating way). The currently-widespread invalidation of peoples' right to bodily autonomy honestly blows my mind, and how little employers do to accommodate this is super disappointing to me.
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    It's incredible the tolerance for antisocial behavior these days. There are people who will still burn trash amidst the worst consequences of climate change because "only myself matters" attitudes. They want to enjoy the fruits of society without social responsibility.
    - Jotra7 5y ago
      It's because we live in a corporate marketing curated hellscape of "rugged individual" libertarian consumerist zombies who have zero community awareness or empathy, drooling their way through their own exploitation while screeching about freedom. It's exhausting.
    - burner556 5y ago
      There are those of us who think the collective good is supreme and are willing to violate individual rights to reach that good. There are those who hold individual rights to be the highest. I think the second is more compatible with the United States. We are guaranteed individual liberties.
throwawayboise 5y ago
If the CO dropped dead of a heart attack, would the ship be able to deploy? Next man up.
- mjevans 5y ago
  The issue is the court order prevents that. This is the whole problem; that the office cannot be dishonorably discharged for disobeying a lawful order (get this preventative medical care, just like the other 500 vaccines they give everyone).
r00fus 5y ago
So wait, how is a Florida judge allowed jurisdiction here? Isn't the military under the UCMJ [1]? In my day, this kind of clown would have been drummed out of service before you could say "dishonorable discharge". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justi...
- rascul 5y ago
  > So wait, how is a Florida judge allowed jurisdiction here? It's not a Florida judge, it's a Federal judge in the US District Court.
  - jonwachob91 5y ago
    > It's not a Florida judge, it's a Federal judge in the US District Court. And yet, the US District Judge is still not a military judge. This is a military matter and should be left to the military courts and judges that are well versed in military law. Let the federal courts handle federal laws, let local courts handle local laws, and let military courts handle military laws.
    - rascul 5y ago
      From what I gathered, the lawsuit is asserting that the US Navy is not abiding by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I understand this to be outside the scope of a court-martial, as this is federal law and not from the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
- madrox 5y ago
  I'm a little surprised by that myself, but I think what's happening is this actually in a related article: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/02/18/could-the-supreme-court-strike-down-the-militarys-vaccination-mandate/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/02... What the government will have to prove, in both cases, is that while it’s granted thousands of medical and administrative exemptions ― though many of those are temporary ― that the high bar for approval of religious exemptions is necessary for keeping the force healthy and deployable. Basically, the military has a mechanism to offer exemption to vaccination for various circumstances. There's an argument being made that their mechanism for exemption on religious grounds is too high. While these arguments are ongoing, the military is being told they cannot discharge the CO, which is where this article comes in. Ultimately, this decision probably doesn't matter since this will quickly escalate to a federal appeal at which point the decision is obvious. Florida can say what it wants in the meantime.
323 5y ago
If this CO is captured by the enemy, they don't need to torture him, just show him the covid vaccine and he might spill all the secrets.
- onenukecourse 5y ago
  If his objection is a religiously derived moral, as opposed to a religious taboo, that wouldn't work. You can physically insert it into him, but he would not be morally at fault since it wasn't his action. This would be like physically grabbing his hand and forcing it to slap his fellow prisoner with it. Obviously the person who slapped the prisoner isn't the CO but the captor.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    depends on the religion/cult.
    - onenukecourse 5y ago
      Hence my care to distinguish a religious taboo from a religiously derived moral objection.
- eggy 5y ago
  Maybe a few years from now that might work when they find out it does cause long-term health issues. Two new studies showing the spike does enter liver cells in vitro. An older study found the same, and it was ignored, and slighted by social media and government stooges. Will you be afraid if cancer rates triple in all populations of the vaccinated in 5 to 7 years? this is my fear. I had COVID, and I have natural immunity. My current wife and my younger kids did not get vaccinated due to having recovered from COVID. My older kids got COVID along with us, but both decided to get vaccinated to attend university. There are no long-term safety studies. There can't be. The vaccine is not old enough. I hope it all goes away, but I will never trust the likes of Big Pharma when they are making $38bn each year pushing a "one size fis all" regimen on all age and risk groups. If you are not diabetic, obese, over 65, or have other immuno-compromising conditions, you are not at as much risk as an obese, diabetic twenty-something with a BMI of 40 or over. And the 5-11 year-old vax is only 12% effective after 30 days. How they hell can they push it on ads and everywhere preying on parents' fears with good conscience? It's criminal.
smitty1e 5y ago
Retired Navy here. This is one of those ambiguous arguments that can be made either way. I got both Pfizer shots and the booster. But, with all of the ruckus surrounding Covid and the vaccines, I'll fall short of condemning other views. Those wanting to toss all dissenters out of the service need to ask themselves how much risk they're interested in eating. Ukraine is no maritime conflict, but there is significant potential for one on the far end of the Asian continent. Indeed, future historians may come to deem this vaccine fracas as somehow related to all of the military goings-on.
- Jotra7 5y ago
bmitc 5y ago
If the article is accurate, this is a surprisingly ridiculous position of the judge and court. The commander has rights to not be forced to take a vaccine but what right does he have to lead a ship? I'm surprised the Navy needs a reason to reassign him. He disobeyed orders and endangers his fellow shipmates. Why he does that (supposedly religion) is immaterial to his being reassigned due to disobedience and endangerment. Could you imagine not being able to reassign a pilot because their "religion" prevents them from losing weight or getting corrective eye surgery?
- jtbayly 5y ago
  - cpncrunch 5y ago
    From the article: he “exposed dozens of his crew to COVID-19 when he decided not to test himself after experiencing symptoms.”
- loxias 5y ago
  Yeah. I never served, but my understanding, both from common sense and an acquaintance who did is that you have to follow orders, or lose your job. How in the world are we supposed to have an effective military if we can't rely on the bedrock principles of following orders and respecting the chain of command? I don't know which to be more upset with, the officer or the activist judiciary.
  - Nullabillity 5y ago
    People "following orders and respecting the chain of command" is how we got the Ukraine situation.
    - loxias 5y ago
      I agree that service members shouldn't follow illegal orders, especially including orders that amount to war crimes. Comparing an attention hungry American officer trying to make a political point to Russia using cluster bombs on civilians feels a bit of a stretch to me though. Perhaps Godwin's law even. ;-)
throw7 5y ago
I thought military are not citizens anymore. Maybe the judge is seeing this as a unique case that's never happened before. The religious exemption is suspect also. Kind of hard to obey "Thou shall not kill" if you are in the military.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  It's really "Thou shalt not murder". It never applied to war. (Though one could argue that it would apply to a massacre during wartime.)
- rascul 5y ago
  > I thought military are not citizens anymore. They are still citizens. There is a contract between the service member and the government. The service member does not lose their rights or citizenship or any of that, but they do agree in contract to do certain things such as following the legal orders of those appointed above them, and adhering to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (an additional set of laws for the military members).
paxys 5y ago
Imagine if a soldier refused to shoot a gun or wear body armor when ordered to do so because it interfered with their beliefs. Neither side of the aisle, even the most anti-gun one, would tolerate their antics, and there would be no sympathetic judge shielding them from consequences.
- onenukecourse 5y ago
  It happened during the Iraq War. The Canadians had a bunch of problems deciding what to do with them.
- whatgoodisaroad 5y ago
  Folks in many militaries claim pacifism, and I understand this to be not uncommon in US forces during conscription. They’d end up being medics or similar roles.
- givemeethekeys 5y ago
  Ah. There's a movie about this. It's called Hacksaw Ridge.
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    There's a large difference between conscientious objectors in a draft and professional service members who join up voluntarily understanding the expectations of them.
    - givemeethekeys 5y ago
      Aw man, I wish you'd watched the movie before commenting! Here's a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacksaw_Ridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacksaw_Ridge Rather than being drafted, our protagonist enlisted!
- floxy 5y ago
  >Imagine if a soldier refused to shoot a gun They even made a movie about one of those soldiers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacksaw_Ridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacksaw_Ridge
sklargh 5y ago
Cool, we have executive officers for a reason.
ibejoeb 5y ago
Presumably, someone has done a threat assessment and resolved that a single man without a covid shot is more of a threat than being down an entire ship during wartime with a nuclear superpower.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Sounds like they need a new CO
rrrhys 5y ago
Opens comments section Closes comments section
thehappypm 5y ago

83 points by 323 5y ago

I don't ever remember having a choice about vaccines when I served. It's the military. Combat readiness and the mission comes before everything else.

jleyank 5y ago
People litigate all sorts of things today. One would think that leaving the ship and holding salary and rank would be sufficient. It’s not like he has any future in the service after this bs.
Arubis 5y ago
Not a servicemember, but the framing from someone who was: while you're a member of the US armed forces, your body is the property of the US Government.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Pretty much. It's called "serving" for a reason. It's not about you.
- gtest 5y ago
  One's religious views and moral views are not property of the gov, and one should act on them.
  - BrandoElFollito 5y ago
    Of course they are. You are in the army because you want to be in the army, together with all the pris and cons. You must be ready to kill someone in a country in Africa (pick anything here) because the govt said so. You know this when you join. You can die there too, and you know that too. This is why I do not particularly care about the military kills in such a war until someone does not celebrate the same way the guy who killed himself serving in mountain rescue, to save someone else.
invalidname 5y ago
This is true for every army (served in Israeli army). Everyone gets the shots. No exceptions. If you have a medical reason not to then you can be in the disabled units in the backoffice.

mistrial9 5y ago

Barrin92 5y ago
in this case because they're serving in the US military and they need to be combat ready, and the state pays for their expenses. also the claim about current vaccines is wrong. They do lower both risk of infection and transmission.
- throttledagain2 5y ago
- drcross 5y ago
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    I do, Fauci says nothing that contradicts this. People with breakthrough infections spread similarly to unvaccinated people, yes. But the majority of vaccinated people do not experience breakthrough infection. And people who are not infected do not spread the disease. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-l...
    - gfodor 5y ago
      Your article is from October. Omicron basically nuked the vaccines’ ability to prevent infection. (It’s not a zero, but it is extremely weakened esp without a recent booster.)
      - Barrin92 5y ago
        it's still the case for omnicron. What is the motivation for people to spread this misinformation? https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/31/the-new-omicron-subvariant-is-more-contagious-but-vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-to-spread-it-study-finds.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/31/the-new-omicron-subvariant-i... And mind you even if the impact on transmission rates is relatively small, this has a significant impact on the amount of cases due to the exponential nature of disease spread.

adhesive_wombat 5y ago

What religion disallows the COVID vaccine but not all the others you get when you're in the military? I know Leviticus is curiously specific about some things, but I don't remember that bit.

oh_sigh 5y ago
Theoretically someone could have a religious awakening after they joined the military. I know someone who had a life saving blood transfusion after a nasty car accident, who later became a JW and now says he regrets the transfusion and would refuse it in the future if he needed another one.
baphometfan 5y ago
I work remote for a small firm and so have never grappled with the issue of a religious exemption, but a close friend did at his Federal contractor employer: - Fetal Cell Tissue, apparently there is some use of it in the development pipeline such that quite a few contemporary religions can use that as an out. - Mark of the Beast, given how forceful government have been (varying on location), one could make the argument that this represents the Revelations concept of being forced into some system of submission to Satan in order to live and so it is their duty as good Christians to resist this. Regarding the first point, I’m not sure if any other DOD related vaccines fall into this category but one could argue their religious beliefs came after their initial military indoctrination. Regarding the second point, the existence of a religious exemption somewhat weakens the argument but then again one could claim that the battle against Satan is ongoing and the system incomplete.
- owlninja 5y ago
  Also regarding Fetal Cell Tissue I think it is used in testing various other common drugs like aspirin, tylenol, ibuprofen etc...
  - onenukecourse 5y ago
    All those drugs existed, approved and became generic before fetal cell research emerged. If one drug manufacturer decides to do FCR on asprin that doesn't invalidate all asprin, just that manufacturer's. For a new product the logic is different. This product exists because of FCR and is forever tainted unless it is recreated using clean room design. Now, you might disagree with this logic, and that's your prerogative. But also irrelevant outside of an honest attempt to persuade a person otherwise. It's their conscious.

dragontamer 5y ago

I got a friend who was forced to take the anthrax vaccine as an enlisted going into Iraq. Anthrax vaccine is well known for pretty severe side effects too. It's not like the COVID-19 vaccine at all. But the military has a long tradition of force protection measures like this. Honestly, this comes off more like some entitled officer thinking they have more sway than they actually do.

mywacaday 5y ago
Ireland has has similar problems with malaria vaccine, https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/75-soldiers-suing-over-anti-malaria-drug-lariam-36919501.html https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/75-soldiers-suing... not sure where it ended up.
xdennis 5y ago
Mistakes in the past don't justify mistakes in the present.
pensatoio 5y ago
You're totally right, but I think there's also something to said for setting new precedent. Status quo rarely changes without disruption.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  So the new precedent would be that you can refuse an order in the military if you think that order might cause you harm? Seems like that might not work out well.
  - pensatoio 5y ago
    I'm not making an argument, I'm simply addressing the parent comment. Perhaps the status quo in question is whether forcing service members to take a vaccine (totally lawful) is justified in this case. Even the CDC director is openly admitting that pushing these brand new vaccines so aggressively was "overly optimistic." Again, not making an argument here, just pointing out that the status quo in the military for _these specific vaccines_ may change as a result of a shifting political landscape, and a lawsuit like this may well be the avenue.

kenhwang 5y ago

I'd like to think this is only an issue during peacetime. During wartime, I would assume the violation would either be ignored or the officer would be immediately court martialed and next in command would take over.

Someone1234 5y ago
I'd hope disobeying a direct order from your commander during wartime wouldn't be ignored.
tootie 5y ago
He's only still in command due to a judicial ruling temporarily preventing the navy from taking action. He had already been relieved of command but the judge reinstated him. It's doubly sticky because it was a civilian court. Generally speaking the military can issue a lot of orders that are not allowable under civilian law. Like mandatory vaccinations.

babyshake 5y ago

This person should likely not be a CO if they refuse to get the COVID vaccine. They are indicating that they refuse benign orders purely because they have some philosophical objection to them. What kind of example does that set?

amatecha 5y ago
I don't think refusal of an injection of a substance into one's body is purely "philosophical" (nor do I think it's reasonable to judge such an injection as purely "benign"). I also think each person should have full agency over their body and what is done to it, and any violation thereof is a pretty fundamental human rights concern. That said, I imagine the military should be able to reassign the CO to a different role/location/etc. (not in a punitive way, but in an accommodating way). The currently-widespread invalidation of peoples' right to bodily autonomy honestly blows my mind, and how little employers do to accommodate this is super disappointing to me.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  It's incredible the tolerance for antisocial behavior these days. There are people who will still burn trash amidst the worst consequences of climate change because "only myself matters" attitudes. They want to enjoy the fruits of society without social responsibility.
  - Jotra7 5y ago
    It's because we live in a corporate marketing curated hellscape of "rugged individual" libertarian consumerist zombies who have zero community awareness or empathy, drooling their way through their own exploitation while screeching about freedom. It's exhausting.
  - burner556 5y ago
    There are those of us who think the collective good is supreme and are willing to violate individual rights to reach that good. There are those who hold individual rights to be the highest. I think the second is more compatible with the United States. We are guaranteed individual liberties.

throwawayboise 5y ago

If the CO dropped dead of a heart attack, would the ship be able to deploy? Next man up.

mjevans 5y ago
The issue is the court order prevents that. This is the whole problem; that the office cannot be dishonorably discharged for disobeying a lawful order (get this preventative medical care, just like the other 500 vaccines they give everyone).

r00fus 5y ago

So wait, how is a Florida judge allowed jurisdiction here? Isn't the military under the UCMJ [1]? In my day, this kind of clown would have been drummed out of service before you could say "dishonorable discharge". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justi...

rascul 5y ago
> So wait, how is a Florida judge allowed jurisdiction here? It's not a Florida judge, it's a Federal judge in the US District Court.
- jonwachob91 5y ago
  > It's not a Florida judge, it's a Federal judge in the US District Court. And yet, the US District Judge is still not a military judge. This is a military matter and should be left to the military courts and judges that are well versed in military law. Let the federal courts handle federal laws, let local courts handle local laws, and let military courts handle military laws.
  - rascul 5y ago
    From what I gathered, the lawsuit is asserting that the US Navy is not abiding by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I understand this to be outside the scope of a court-martial, as this is federal law and not from the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
madrox 5y ago
I'm a little surprised by that myself, but I think what's happening is this actually in a related article: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/02/18/could-the-supreme-court-strike-down-the-militarys-vaccination-mandate/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/02... What the government will have to prove, in both cases, is that while it’s granted thousands of medical and administrative exemptions ― though many of those are temporary ― that the high bar for approval of religious exemptions is necessary for keeping the force healthy and deployable. Basically, the military has a mechanism to offer exemption to vaccination for various circumstances. There's an argument being made that their mechanism for exemption on religious grounds is too high. While these arguments are ongoing, the military is being told they cannot discharge the CO, which is where this article comes in. Ultimately, this decision probably doesn't matter since this will quickly escalate to a federal appeal at which point the decision is obvious. Florida can say what it wants in the meantime.

323 5y ago

If this CO is captured by the enemy, they don't need to torture him, just show him the covid vaccine and he might spill all the secrets.

onenukecourse 5y ago
If his objection is a religiously derived moral, as opposed to a religious taboo, that wouldn't work. You can physically insert it into him, but he would not be morally at fault since it wasn't his action. This would be like physically grabbing his hand and forcing it to slap his fellow prisoner with it. Obviously the person who slapped the prisoner isn't the CO but the captor.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  depends on the religion/cult.
  - onenukecourse 5y ago
    Hence my care to distinguish a religious taboo from a religiously derived moral objection.
eggy 5y ago
Maybe a few years from now that might work when they find out it does cause long-term health issues. Two new studies showing the spike does enter liver cells in vitro. An older study found the same, and it was ignored, and slighted by social media and government stooges. Will you be afraid if cancer rates triple in all populations of the vaccinated in 5 to 7 years? this is my fear. I had COVID, and I have natural immunity. My current wife and my younger kids did not get vaccinated due to having recovered from COVID. My older kids got COVID along with us, but both decided to get vaccinated to attend university. There are no long-term safety studies. There can't be. The vaccine is not old enough. I hope it all goes away, but I will never trust the likes of Big Pharma when they are making $38bn each year pushing a "one size fis all" regimen on all age and risk groups. If you are not diabetic, obese, over 65, or have other immuno-compromising conditions, you are not at as much risk as an obese, diabetic twenty-something with a BMI of 40 or over. And the 5-11 year-old vax is only 12% effective after 30 days. How they hell can they push it on ads and everywhere preying on parents' fears with good conscience? It's criminal.

smitty1e 5y ago

Retired Navy here. This is one of those ambiguous arguments that can be made either way. I got both Pfizer shots and the booster. But, with all of the ruckus surrounding Covid and the vaccines, I'll fall short of condemning other views. Those wanting to toss all dissenters out of the service need to ask themselves how much risk they're interested in eating. Ukraine is no maritime conflict, but there is significant potential for one on the far end of the Asian continent. Indeed, future historians may come to deem this vaccine fracas as somehow related to all of the military goings-on.

Jotra7 5y ago

bmitc 5y ago

If the article is accurate, this is a surprisingly ridiculous position of the judge and court. The commander has rights to not be forced to take a vaccine but what right does he have to lead a ship? I'm surprised the Navy needs a reason to reassign him. He disobeyed orders and endangers his fellow shipmates. Why he does that (supposedly religion) is immaterial to his being reassigned due to disobedience and endangerment. Could you imagine not being able to reassign a pilot because their "religion" prevents them from losing weight or getting corrective eye surgery?

jtbayly 5y ago
- cpncrunch 5y ago
  From the article: he “exposed dozens of his crew to COVID-19 when he decided not to test himself after experiencing symptoms.”
loxias 5y ago
Yeah. I never served, but my understanding, both from common sense and an acquaintance who did is that you have to follow orders, or lose your job. How in the world are we supposed to have an effective military if we can't rely on the bedrock principles of following orders and respecting the chain of command? I don't know which to be more upset with, the officer or the activist judiciary.
- Nullabillity 5y ago
  People "following orders and respecting the chain of command" is how we got the Ukraine situation.
  - loxias 5y ago
    I agree that service members shouldn't follow illegal orders, especially including orders that amount to war crimes. Comparing an attention hungry American officer trying to make a political point to Russia using cluster bombs on civilians feels a bit of a stretch to me though. Perhaps Godwin's law even. ;-)

throw7 5y ago

I thought military are not citizens anymore. Maybe the judge is seeing this as a unique case that's never happened before. The religious exemption is suspect also. Kind of hard to obey "Thou shall not kill" if you are in the military.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
It's really "Thou shalt not murder". It never applied to war. (Though one could argue that it would apply to a massacre during wartime.)
rascul 5y ago
> I thought military are not citizens anymore. They are still citizens. There is a contract between the service member and the government. The service member does not lose their rights or citizenship or any of that, but they do agree in contract to do certain things such as following the legal orders of those appointed above them, and adhering to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (an additional set of laws for the military members).

paxys 5y ago

Imagine if a soldier refused to shoot a gun or wear body armor when ordered to do so because it interfered with their beliefs. Neither side of the aisle, even the most anti-gun one, would tolerate their antics, and there would be no sympathetic judge shielding them from consequences.

onenukecourse 5y ago
It happened during the Iraq War. The Canadians had a bunch of problems deciding what to do with them.
whatgoodisaroad 5y ago
Folks in many militaries claim pacifism, and I understand this to be not uncommon in US forces during conscription. They’d end up being medics or similar roles.
givemeethekeys 5y ago
Ah. There's a movie about this. It's called Hacksaw Ridge.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  There's a large difference between conscientious objectors in a draft and professional service members who join up voluntarily understanding the expectations of them.
  - givemeethekeys 5y ago
    Aw man, I wish you'd watched the movie before commenting! Here's a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacksaw_Ridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacksaw_Ridge Rather than being drafted, our protagonist enlisted!
floxy 5y ago
>Imagine if a soldier refused to shoot a gun They even made a movie about one of those soldiers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacksaw_Ridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacksaw_Ridge

sklargh 5y ago

Cool, we have executive officers for a reason.

ibejoeb 5y ago

Presumably, someone has done a threat assessment and resolved that a single man without a covid shot is more of a threat than being down an entire ship during wartime with a nuclear superpower.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Sounds like they need a new CO

rrrhys 5y ago

Opens comments section Closes comments section

thehappypm 5y ago