4 ms·

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: -

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.
ASalazarMX 5y ago
The first objection looks pretty sensible, if properly backed with proof. The second, in contrast, is incredibly ambiguous, as the mark of the beast can be anything, even abstractions. The measles vaccine actually leaves a mark, and it had little opposition, if at all.
- baphometfan 5y ago
  All in all, it’s not anyone’s place to play religious scholar with anyone else’s belief system or to demand hard proof either. Personally, I haven’t found a sect that really matches with my reading and understanding of scripture. So how do you validate that? As for the second, no one said the “mark” has to be a literal mark. Many sects of many religions view large parts of scripture as allegorical or good general teachings for a coherent (if not imperfect, particularly based on modern secular norms) society. No to be overly accusatory, but this all reminds me a bit of a young, agnostic me. The “well what about turning the other cheek” type of gotcha comment that ignores scripture that provides deeper context or contextual “contradiction.” We live in a large and diverse world, and religion is ultimately a human system. We’re just never going to be able to nail it down to an instruction set as we may desire to do.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    That's actually easy. All you have to do is ask if they're being consistent. If they've taken all the vaccinations to this point but suddenly have an issue with this particular vaccine, then it's not a religious thing. Personally, I don't feel like it should matter whether a belief is fundamentally religious or not. The thing that matters is that a person believes it. That said, if they aren't being consistent, then there's no reason to take them seriously.
    - baphometfan 5y ago
      Sure, if you catch them in an lie it’s clear something is amiss. If one argued against Fetal Cell development and asked off for an abortion (or used some other product) then you get to mail them to the proverbial cross. Now, how much time must elapse before a religious change is true and sincere? A hard question to determine. For many, all it takes is a rock bottom moment in their life.
    - jjeaff 5y ago
      Either that or you make the legal argument that your freedom of religion ends at the tip of my nose. Seeing as the larger the group of unvaccinated get, the more danger we are all in, I don't think that would be a difficult argument to make.
mjevans 5y ago
Surely the military forces you to carry identification papers and present such ID in many circumstances. That seems obvious from an OPsec perspective. My father served in the forces and would also readily rattle off their social security number (another 'mark of the beast') to any government official. It's just what they do in the forces.
- baphometfan 5y ago
  Who is to say the social security number is or isn’t the mark of the beast? I’ve yet to hear of anyone kicked out of a store in the western liberal order for lack of one. On the other hand, the Covid shot yes. You’re perhaps forgetting one of the key elements to the story is not just “a mark” but that it is required for your ability to operate in life. That my undocumented school mates had no trouble getting by in life and attaining meaningful work post graduation would contraindicate the SSN being “the mark,” it wasn’t required to rhat degree. Then again someone may come along and argue IT IS the mark but they just haven’t finished implementing that system yet. Interpretation of religious texts is fun that way.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    There are quite a few things you can't participate in without a SSN or some equivalent in the US. Public school is not one of those because at the very least, voters have been convinced we shouldn't be cruel to children in that way.
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    > Who is to say the social security number is or isn’t the mark of the beast? I'll say it. It's not the mark of the beast. It's a number in a database. Calm thy tittay.
8note 5y ago
For the mark of the beast side, as a good Christian, he should not be fighting for Satan's(the US government) navy? It'd make a lot more sense for him to leave the military altogether
amflare 5y ago
> the existence of a religious exemption somewhat weakens the argument So because there is an out built into the system, it can't be the literal embodiment of evil some argue, therefore no one should be allowed to use the out? I feel like this argument is self-defeating.

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.

ASalazarMX 5y ago

The first objection looks pretty sensible, if properly backed with proof. The second, in contrast, is incredibly ambiguous, as the mark of the beast can be anything, even abstractions. The measles vaccine actually leaves a mark, and it had little opposition, if at all.

baphometfan 5y ago
All in all, it’s not anyone’s place to play religious scholar with anyone else’s belief system or to demand hard proof either. Personally, I haven’t found a sect that really matches with my reading and understanding of scripture. So how do you validate that? As for the second, no one said the “mark” has to be a literal mark. Many sects of many religions view large parts of scripture as allegorical or good general teachings for a coherent (if not imperfect, particularly based on modern secular norms) society. No to be overly accusatory, but this all reminds me a bit of a young, agnostic me. The “well what about turning the other cheek” type of gotcha comment that ignores scripture that provides deeper context or contextual “contradiction.” We live in a large and diverse world, and religion is ultimately a human system. We’re just never going to be able to nail it down to an instruction set as we may desire to do.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  That's actually easy. All you have to do is ask if they're being consistent. If they've taken all the vaccinations to this point but suddenly have an issue with this particular vaccine, then it's not a religious thing. Personally, I don't feel like it should matter whether a belief is fundamentally religious or not. The thing that matters is that a person believes it. That said, if they aren't being consistent, then there's no reason to take them seriously.
  - baphometfan 5y ago
    Sure, if you catch them in an lie it’s clear something is amiss. If one argued against Fetal Cell development and asked off for an abortion (or used some other product) then you get to mail them to the proverbial cross. Now, how much time must elapse before a religious change is true and sincere? A hard question to determine. For many, all it takes is a rock bottom moment in their life.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    Either that or you make the legal argument that your freedom of religion ends at the tip of my nose. Seeing as the larger the group of unvaccinated get, the more danger we are all in, I don't think that would be a difficult argument to make.

mjevans 5y ago

Surely the military forces you to carry identification papers and present such ID in many circumstances. That seems obvious from an OPsec perspective. My father served in the forces and would also readily rattle off their social security number (another 'mark of the beast') to any government official. It's just what they do in the forces.

baphometfan 5y ago
Who is to say the social security number is or isn’t the mark of the beast? I’ve yet to hear of anyone kicked out of a store in the western liberal order for lack of one. On the other hand, the Covid shot yes. You’re perhaps forgetting one of the key elements to the story is not just “a mark” but that it is required for your ability to operate in life. That my undocumented school mates had no trouble getting by in life and attaining meaningful work post graduation would contraindicate the SSN being “the mark,” it wasn’t required to rhat degree. Then again someone may come along and argue IT IS the mark but they just haven’t finished implementing that system yet. Interpretation of religious texts is fun that way.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  There are quite a few things you can't participate in without a SSN or some equivalent in the US. Public school is not one of those because at the very least, voters have been convinced we shouldn't be cruel to children in that way.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  > Who is to say the social security number is or isn’t the mark of the beast? I'll say it. It's not the mark of the beast. It's a number in a database. Calm thy tittay.

8note 5y ago

For the mark of the beast side, as a good Christian, he should not be fighting for Satan's(the US government) navy? It'd make a lot more sense for him to leave the military altogether

amflare 5y ago

> the existence of a religious exemption somewhat weakens the argument So because there is an out built into the system, it can't be the literal embodiment of evil some argue, therefore no one should be allowed to use the out? I feel like this argument is self-defeating.