It's Hard to Prove that the Anti-Vaxxer Position is "sincerely held religious belief"

[lees1975]

In fact, using the Evangelical methods of interpreting the Bible, it is not possible to defend an anti-vaxxer position.
https://signalpress.blogspot.com/2022/01/anti-vaxxers-seeking-religious.html

The testimony of Christians is clearly at stake in this pandemic. Evangelicals have singled themselves out as the primary opponents of vaccination mandates and mask mandates, without providing any Biblical support in a correct context. Their opposition is rooted in their support and loyalty to the past President under whose administration the vaccines were developed in the first place, and who himself is now criticized for publicly acknowledging his own vaccination and booster shots, an unexplainable and completely backward position. There's no question that this has indeed called their Christian testimony into question. The Biblical text clearly supports the idea that getting vaccinated against COVID, including mandates which make sure those in groups which serve the public are healthy, can be defined as "doing right", if saving lives can be considered "doing right."

If, as most Evangelicals and many conservative Protestants insist, there can't be a "sincerely held religious belief" without the support of the Biblical text, then being anti-vaxxer is not, under any circumstances, a "sincerely held religious belief." That makes an anti-vaxxer position "wrongful use of the name of the LORD."

[unblock]

1. A religious belief doesn't entitle someone to put others in harm's way.

You can't throw other people, virgins or otherwise, into the volcano to appease the angry gods.

And again, these people aren't merely refusing the vaccine, which they are welcome to do if they then stay away from other people.

Instead, they're refusing the vaccine *and* then going out in public and engaging in behavior that can reasonably be expected to catch disease and then spread it to other people.


There is no freedom to infect

[PortTack]

2. The mRNA vaccines have been around for a decade with Oxford leading the research

The vaccines were NOT developed under tfg administration. When covid turned into a pandemic all their mRNA vaccine research turned towards covid. The orange mass had little to nothing to do with their development

[lees1975]

13. Agree.

But, in putting up information to ram giant holes through the anti-vax argument that many Evangelicals are making, since Trump became their new savior, it makes zero sense for him to take bows everytime someone praises him, like Biden did, showing what a narcissistic tramp he is, and take credit for it, but then get booed by his own base for suggesting that he got vaccinated and boosted.

Trump just figures out what to say to get applause. And they only care when he goes along with their conspiracy theories to get it.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

3. They can take a test...

They don’t need to get vaxxed as long as they test regularly. Don’t think there is a religious prohibition on testing…

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

4. More to the point, why are people suddenly claiming

a "sincerely held religious belief" against this vaccine, when they've been getting other vaccines all along. Most of them, anyway.

[mike_c]

5. the first question I'd ask people claiming a religious exemption is...

"...are you vaccinated against any other diseases?" Rubella, pertussis, etc. If the answer is no, then perhaps their exemption request has merit. Otherwise, nope.

[YP_Yooper]

6. There is one outstanding issue with the article, though

is a closely held belief doesn't need a supporting bible passage to qualify. I understand what the author is doing in trying to argue against the specific passages, but that's not the only issue.

Hell, it's said that with Catholics, their belief is only 1/3 bible, 2/3rds catholic dogma - and that counts
Jehovah's Witnesses are pretty strict about anything related to blood and injecting things into the body not specifically mentioned in the bible - and that counts
Amish are pretty strict, too

Just an academic question, but as we see religious ethics being discussed in other threads, what if the vaccine was made through genetically altered pork? Mandate Jewish and Muslim followers to get it anyway?

[lees1975]

9. This article is specifically arguing against the Evangelical anti-vax position

and uses the Bible because they believe that it is the sole authority for faith and practice, not tradition or dogma.

Because Jehovah's Witnesses are consistent, and it is a verifiable doctrinal point of their church, their objections qualify as sincerely held. But they don't accept the Bible as an authority.

Likewise, if pork were involved, and those beliefs are codified in what Jews and Muslims consider authoritative, it would also qualify as a sincerely held religious belief.

There is no Evangelical denomination, by definition, that objects to medical treatment or care in any of their written statements of faith.

[YP_Yooper]

10. Agree with you on this one

Those in Ohio are Evangelicals, and are all anti-vacc (FWIW, Q, too) :/

[TrogL]

7. Rabid Religious Righters are not known for following Gospel

Jesus said (paraphrase) to give your wealth to the poor. Compare that to Prosperity Gospel.

[YP_Yooper]

8. You can set up a nice long thread of the hypocrisies around this :)

I've some bible-thumping Ohio family that really gets offended when I say they would run Jesus out of town if he were around now - even with the basics!!!

[lees1975]

12. Many Evangelicals I know would do the same.

There's always an answer, always some way to be absolutely certain about what the Bible says when it can be twisted to support their view, and to make it say something else when that perspective doesn't match with their social agenda or political view. It gets difficult to distinguish between deliberate and misleading, and inexcusable ignorance. When you get to that point in the conversation where you get suspicious looks and someone tells you that you sound like you went to some kind of theological seminary, and got yourself some "book learnin'", the discussion is over. You expect your doctor to be at the top of his class, but you don't want a minister who was.

[Skittles]

11. religious delusions should not affect public health

absolute fucking nonsense