Jump to content

Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss


dogfish78

Recommended Posts

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21164117-contractorvaxmandateca11ord121721

Quote

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, we deny the motion because the government has not established one of “the most critical” factors— that it will be irreparably injured absent a stay. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (“The first two factors of the traditional standard are the most critical.”); New Georgia Project v. Raffensperger, 976 F.3d 1278, 1280 (11th Cir. 2020) (The government is “entitled to a stay if [it] show[s] (1) that [it] will likely succeed on the merits; (2) irreparable injury absent a stay; (3) that the stay will not substantially injure the other interested parties; and (4) that a stay is in the public interest.”). Without a showing by the government of an irreparable injury absent a stay, we cannot stay the preliminary injunction. See United States v. Bogle, 855 F.2d 707, 711 (11th Cir. 1988) (Hatchett, J., concurring specially) (“I deny the stay because the government has failed to make the showing of irreparable injury required by the law of the Eleventh Circuit.”). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2021 at 6:16 AM, TheNewGazmo said:
On 12/16/2021 at 2:30 AM, Waingro said:
Out of genuine curiosity: what is the framework for the religious exemption request, that doesn't apply to any of the other required vaccines?
I legitimately want to learn more, I don't feel like I have a good understanding of how important this is to some people. 

The big thing would be the usage of fetal stem cells to develop the COVID-19 vaccines. Anything beyond that is stretching their religious freedom IMO, because yes, what about all of those other vaccines?

Disagree as an officer and pilot going through the Religious Accommodation process for all RNA/DNA vaccines. I have major faith based objections to how mRNA, DNA, or genetically modified viral vector vaccines accomplish what they are doing Exerts from my RA:

My DNA naturally provides custom tailored instructions in ribonucleic acid (RNA) to all of the mitochondria in each of my cells.  These mitochondria produce various proteins based on the natural messenger RNA received, yielding incredible results including regulation of metabolic activity, growth of new cells, tissue repair, detoxification, blood and hormone production, among many others. The fact is mRNA, DNA, and genetically modified viral based gene therapies deliberately undo and hinder my God given natural cellular processes by forcing cells throughout my body to produce a known disease-causing toxin, a spike protein very similar to that found in the COVID-19 virus.  Not only would this stop my cells from performing the healthy, natural, God given functions mentioned in the previous paragraph, but I would be willingly defiling my body by accepting a modification to my natural genetic cellular function." 

 

On 12/16/2021 at 5:50 PM, CaptainMorgan said:


Whatever your religious objections are, you can’t honestly believe that fetal cell development is a reason that anyone chooses to have an abortion. Your religious beliefs also shouldn’t dictate ethics to a world where a majority of the population doesn’t share your religion.

Abortion exists, it will never go away. Banning fetal cell research will not stop abortions, but it will hinder potentially life-saving research.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My conviction starts with the fact that abortion is a sinful evil act, there isn't any situation it is good or right (I know most don't believe that). By using, promoting, or even tolerating products or industries that use abortion derived products, I would be creating future demand for more abortions being as the abortion industry creates billions in profits each year. The bottom line is it is wrong; I'm willing to use financial, political, and social pressure to stand up for the truth and what is right. Maybe it won't stop until Christ comes back, but I'm willing to do anything I can to reduce societal acceptance and the number of procedures...to include laying down a military pension, AvB, and stable income to maintain my integrity and honor my God while sharing my faith when I get the opportunity.

Evil existing doesn't provide moral or logical justification for tolerating something that is wrong. I firmly believe a nation that tolerates and promotes the killing of innocent unborn children in the name of sexual freedom and "life-saving research" will continue to fall under harsher and harsher judgment.

 

On 12/16/2021 at 7:28 PM, hockeydork said:

Respect your beliefs, but genuine question on how your thought flows, if you don't want to answer please feel free not to. This is not intended to ignite some hostile debate. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, aren't the HEK293 cells from one fetus in like 1973 and they've just been multiplying them ever since? If so isn't this the lesser of two evils option? Yes that fetus did not get a chance at life, which is tragic, but it did result in being for the greater good and it is already done. i.e one tragedy to save who knows how many lives. How do you rectify that with being in the military. Military officers make the decision to take life all the time, in the name of the greater good. It's really the only reason you can justify plopping a JDAM on someones head/a nuke on two cities in Japan is because you think it will save lives/make the world a safer and more secure place. Genuinely curious how you rectify those discrepancies. Come judgement day, if there is one, how do you explain that to the lord. 

To me, the issue isn't HEK292 in a vacuum. All of the officially documented cell lines in use by the US medical industry have been developed by purchasing and using hundreds (I believe many more that aren't documented) of aborted children. Even more though, tens of thousands of abortions are conducted and sold for profit in the US every year. The data is very poor on where aborted fetal tissue is actually sold and used. Spontaneous abortions don't work for a medical quality product, so abortions are planned, scheduled, and modified to meet the research needs that exist. If anyone is legitimately open to learning about the magnitude and practices of the abortion industry (starting in the 60s and up to today), this research white paper written from a Christian perspective is VERY well documented with cited scientific sources for all claims. It completely debunks the 2 abortions' in the 70s claim.

https://avoicefortruth.com/abortion-the-human-fetal-cell-industry-and-vaccines/  (Click the white paper link)

God calls for his people to be holy and never tolerate sin. I could buy the "turn evil" into good argument if the abortion industry stopped at 1 or 2. This isn't the case; it a genocide in the millions with a growing demand and profit in the billions from the medical industry. The morality of this for me would be akin to accepting money to cure world hunger from a growing organization that was actively acquiring and selling slaves for use in the sex trafficking industry....or money from a hitman actively murdering innocent people. I've killed over 200 enemy combatants in the GWOT, and I believe I've helped hinder evil and save US and coalition lives. I've also had to tell a General and a JTAC to pound sand because a target wasn't lawful and it didn't comply with ROE, LOAC, or achieve our national strategic objectives. If I had been forced to take that shot or it became a normal thing, I'd absolutely say no and step down like I'll likely be doing in the next year.

I've reached the point where God's guidance in my life through a personal walk, prayer, and scripture doesn't permit me to take these COVID-19 vaccines; my faith and following Christ are higher than any job, career, or financial incentive. On judgement day, Christ has me covered...I'm way more focused on eternity following this life than preserving my life now.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took a break from baseops for a number of months, so I'm pretty late into this conversation. It was a challenging few months spiritually, professionally, and personally when I first began grappling with the COVID-19 vaccine in terms of the conflict between my faith and career. I've seen a lot of comments acting like those of us seeking RA's are criminals violating lawful orders, politically driven selfish trouble-makers, willful granny killers, etc. I'd like to provide cliff notes with what a believe are a strong legal and policy justification for approving religious accommodations in the AF/DOD. The reality is the DOD and any employer could choose to approve medical or religious exemptions while still mitigating and complying with the mandates/law. I did the job for 1.5 years before there was a vaccine, and I'm deployed flying in AFCENT/USAFE right now with my temporary admin exemption while my RA processes.

-----------------------------------

United States Constitution:  The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  This amendment clearly prohibits Congress (and the DoD as an arm of Congress) from using a specific test or requirement (religious dogma, denomination, doctrinal view, or opinion from a religious leader) to validate the sincerity or legitimacy of a sincerely held religious or faith-based belief. Further, it prohibits passage of any law (or lesser policy) that prohibits the free exercise of religion.  

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA):  Congress passed this law in 1993 which states “The Congress finds that- (1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution; (2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;”.  It further states that “(b) EXCEPTION.-Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person-(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.”

Frazee v. Illinois (Supreme Court Ruling):  On March 29, 1989, the US Supreme Court in Frazee versus Illinois, ruled that it is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and illegal to fail to recognize a sincerely held religious belief based on the fact that it isn’t built on “tenets or dogma of an established religious sect”.  In this ruling, the supreme court establishes that it is not the government’s role to question or discredit a sincere belief based on where the belief originates, rather the government should be asking 1) is this a sincerely held belief that places a substantial burden on a person…and 2) what is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling government interest?

DoD Instruction 1300.17 (Religious Liberty In The Military Services):  DoDI 1300.17 “Establishes DoD policy in furtherance of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, recognizing that Service members have the right to observe the tenets of their religion”.  This instruction “Implements requirements in…“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act”, and other laws applicable to the accommodation of religious practices for DoD to provide, in accordance with the RFRA, that DoD Components will normally accommodate practices of a Service member based on a sincerely held religious belief.”  Paragraph 1.2.e states “In accordance with RFRA, if such a military policy, practice or duty substantially burdens a Service member’s exercise of religion, accommodation can only be denied if: (1) The military policy, practice, or duty is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. (2) It is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.  Paragraph 2.3.b.(2).(b).3 provides the Military Department (delegated to AF MAJCOM/CC) the specific authority to approve a religious accommodation request for immunization in particular.

Air Force Policy & Governing Directives

AFI 48-110 (Immunizations and Chemoprophylaxis for the Prevention of Infectious Diseases):  Paragraph 2-6.b.(3).(a) addresses administrative immunization exemptions and states “Immunization exemptions for religious reasons may be granted according to Service-specific policies to accommodate religious beliefs of a service member.”  It further states “For the Air Force, permanent exemptions for religious reasons are not granted; the MAJCOM commander is the designated approval and revocation authority for religious immunization exemptions.”  This instruction establishes a process and precedent for approving this accommodation request for a vaccine exemption, and it also provides an option to revoke the accommodation approval if or when it is no longer the “least restrictive means” of preserving the compelling government interest of mission capability, readiness, health, and safety.

AFPD 52-2 (Accommodation of Religious Practices in The Air Force):  Paragraph 1.2 of AFPD 52-2 states “The Air Force has a compelling government interest in mission accomplishment and will take this into account when considering Air Force members’ requests for accommodation of religious practices.  This interest includes military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, or public health and safety for both the individual and unit levels.”  Paragraph 1.4 also states “The Air Force will approve an individual request for accommodation unless the request would have a real (not theoretical) adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, or public health and safety.”  Further, paragraph 1.4 states “Airmen have a temporary exemption from compliance in the cases of medical practices or immunization while the request is pending.”

DAFI 52-201 (Religious Freedom in The Department Of The Air Force):  The DAFI 52-201 adequately addresses the government requirement to ensure the “least restrictive means” of meeting the compelling government interest. Paragraph 2.2 states the following: “As the right to request religious accommodation is based on the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes, it is critically important to fully consider and appropriately value an Airmen’s or Guardian’s request.”  It directs reviewing and approving officials to ask two questions:

·         “The first question to answer is whether the request is based on expression of sincerely held beliefs (e.g. conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs). If it is based on a sincerely held belief, the relevant expression can include any religious practice…”

·         “The second question is whether the policy, practice, or duty from which the member is requesting accommodation substantially burdens the expression of that belief.” “A governmental act is a substantial burden to a Service member’s exercise of religious if it:

o   Requires participation in an activity prohibited by a sincerely held religious belief;

o   “Prevents participation in conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief; or”

o   Places substantial pressure on a Service member to engage in conduct contrary to a sincerely held religious belief.”

Adverse Action & Punishment:  Paragraph 1.3 states “A member’s expression of sincerely held beliefs may not be used as the basis for any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion; and may not be used as a basis for making schooling, training, or assignment decisions.

Failure to Accommodate:  Paragraph 2.7 states “If, after a thorough analysis of the above factors, the religious accommodation of Airmen or Guardians cannot be met, administrative actions that may be considered include reassignment, reclassification, or voluntary separation.”

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, GoodSplash9 said:

The fact is mRNA, DNA, and genetically modified viral based gene therapies deliberately undo and hinder my God given natural cellular processes

Doesn’t pretty much all modern medicine do this? Perhaps the modern world, & especially aviation isn’t your bag. After all, god didn’t give you wings….surely he doesn’t expect you to fly. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GoodSplash9 said:

I took a break from baseops for a number of months, so I'm pretty late into this conversation. It was a challenging few months spiritually, professionally, and personally when I first began grappling with the COVID-19 vaccine in terms of the conflict between my faith and career. I've seen a lot of comments acting like those of us seeking RA's are criminals violating lawful orders, politically driven selfish trouble-makers, willful granny killers, etc. I'd like to provide cliff notes with what a believe are a strong legal and policy justification for approving religious accommodations in the AF/DOD. The reality is the DOD and any employer could choose to approve medical or religious exemptions while still mitigating and complying with the mandates/law. I did the job for 1.5 years before there was a vaccine, and I'm deployed flying in AFCENT/USAFE right now with my temporary admin exemption while my RA processes.

-----------------------------------

United States Constitution:  The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  This amendment clearly prohibits Congress (and the DoD as an arm of Congress) from using a specific test or requirement (religious dogma, denomination, doctrinal view, or opinion from a religious leader) to validate the sincerity or legitimacy of a sincerely held religious or faith-based belief. Further, it prohibits passage of any law (or lesser policy) that prohibits the free exercise of religion.  

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA):  Congress passed this law in 1993 which states “The Congress finds that- (1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution; (2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;”.  It further states that “(b) EXCEPTION.-Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person-(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.”

Frazee v. Illinois (Supreme Court Ruling):  On March 29, 1989, the US Supreme Court in Frazee versus Illinois, ruled that it is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and illegal to fail to recognize a sincerely held religious belief based on the fact that it isn’t built on “tenets or dogma of an established religious sect”.  In this ruling, the supreme court establishes that it is not the government’s role to question or discredit a sincere belief based on where the belief originates, rather the government should be asking 1) is this a sincerely held belief that places a substantial burden on a person…and 2) what is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling government interest?

DoD Instruction 1300.17 (Religious Liberty In The Military Services):  DoDI 1300.17 “Establishes DoD policy in furtherance of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, recognizing that Service members have the right to observe the tenets of their religion”.  This instruction “Implements requirements in…“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act”, and other laws applicable to the accommodation of religious practices for DoD to provide, in accordance with the RFRA, that DoD Components will normally accommodate practices of a Service member based on a sincerely held religious belief.”  Paragraph 1.2.e states “In accordance with RFRA, if such a military policy, practice or duty substantially burdens a Service member’s exercise of religion, accommodation can only be denied if: (1) The military policy, practice, or duty is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. (2) It is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.  Paragraph 2.3.b.(2).(b).3 provides the Military Department (delegated to AF MAJCOM/CC) the specific authority to approve a religious accommodation request for immunization in particular.

Air Force Policy & Governing Directives

AFI 48-110 (Immunizations and Chemoprophylaxis for the Prevention of Infectious Diseases):  Paragraph 2-6.b.(3).(a) addresses administrative immunization exemptions and states “Immunization exemptions for religious reasons may be granted according to Service-specific policies to accommodate religious beliefs of a service member.”  It further states “For the Air Force, permanent exemptions for religious reasons are not granted; the MAJCOM commander is the designated approval and revocation authority for religious immunization exemptions.”  This instruction establishes a process and precedent for approving this accommodation request for a vaccine exemption, and it also provides an option to revoke the accommodation approval if or when it is no longer the “least restrictive means” of preserving the compelling government interest of mission capability, readiness, health, and safety.

AFPD 52-2 (Accommodation of Religious Practices in The Air Force):  Paragraph 1.2 of AFPD 52-2 states “The Air Force has a compelling government interest in mission accomplishment and will take this into account when considering Air Force members’ requests for accommodation of religious practices.  This interest includes military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, or public health and safety for both the individual and unit levels.”  Paragraph 1.4 also states “The Air Force will approve an individual request for accommodation unless the request would have a real (not theoretical) adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, or public health and safety.”  Further, paragraph 1.4 states “Airmen have a temporary exemption from compliance in the cases of medical practices or immunization while the request is pending.”

DAFI 52-201 (Religious Freedom in The Department Of The Air Force):  The DAFI 52-201 adequately addresses the government requirement to ensure the “least restrictive means” of meeting the compelling government interest. Paragraph 2.2 states the following: “As the right to request religious accommodation is based on the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes, it is critically important to fully consider and appropriately value an Airmen’s or Guardian’s request.”  It directs reviewing and approving officials to ask two questions:

·         “The first question to answer is whether the request is based on expression of sincerely held beliefs (e.g. conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs). If it is based on a sincerely held belief, the relevant expression can include any religious practice…”

·         “The second question is whether the policy, practice, or duty from which the member is requesting accommodation substantially burdens the expression of that belief.” “A governmental act is a substantial burden to a Service member’s exercise of religious if it:

o   Requires participation in an activity prohibited by a sincerely held religious belief;

o   “Prevents participation in conduct motivated by a sincerely held religious belief; or”

o   Places substantial pressure on a Service member to engage in conduct contrary to a sincerely held religious belief.”

Adverse Action & Punishment:  Paragraph 1.3 states “A member’s expression of sincerely held beliefs may not be used as the basis for any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion; and may not be used as a basis for making schooling, training, or assignment decisions.

Failure to Accommodate:  Paragraph 2.7 states “If, after a thorough analysis of the above factors, the religious accommodation of Airmen or Guardians cannot be met, administrative actions that may be considered include reassignment, reclassification, or voluntary separation.”

If you refused every other vaccine for similar reasons then I think your argument is valid. If this is the only vaccine you have had an issue with I think your argument is much weaker.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Prozac said:

Doesn’t pretty much all modern medicine do this? Perhaps the modern world, & especially aviation isn’t your bag. After all, god didn’t give you wings….surely he doesn’t expect you to fly. 

Yeah, I'm not sure "deliberately undo and hinder my God given natural cellular processes" jives with taking *any* medication. Definitely a bridge too far, and inconsistent with any COVID-only objections I tend to support.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply doesn't matter.  If he(assuming) "sincerely believes" this, then DoD/USAF's own rules state he should be granted the accomodation.

Unless they bow to political pressure.

Color me shocked.

Likewise at those who scoff at such held beliefs.  I pity any subordinates who came to you for help.

You don't have to agree with those beliefs, but to simply toss them aside says much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Simply doesn't matter.  If he(assuming) "sincerely believes" this, then DoD/USAF's own rules state he should be granted the accomodation.

Unless they bow to political pressure.

Color me shocked.

Likewise at those who scoff at such held beliefs.  I pity any subordinates who came to you for help.

You don't have to agree with those beliefs, but to simply toss them aside says much.

What people often miss is that accommodation may well be separating from the service. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MCO said:

If you refused every other vaccine for similar reasons then I think your argument is valid. If this is the only vaccine you have had an issue with I think your argument is much weaker.

I addressed that in my RA with a whole page. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and supreme court case Frazee v. Illinois clearly establish legally that there is no denominational or previous track record metric for establishing that someone has a sincerely held religious belief. Like alot of people, I had no idea that vaccines were routinely developed, researched, tested, and grown/produced using aborted fetal stem cells. I can't go back in time, just apply my beliefs now and in the future. I won't be taking any vaccines in the future involved with aborted fetal stem cells, but the RNA/DNA is also a no-go for me. I wouldn't say it is a "weak" argument.

The real question for the air force is the whether or not the opportunity cost of approving my RA and keeping the leadership/aviation/mission benefit I have outweighs the benefit for health/readiness afforded by a 100% vaccination rate. We all know how it is going. I don't expect the DOD or AF to make a critical decision here when careers and perceptions are involved...the slim chance for a win will come in Federal courts or from congress. Hence...delay/degrade/deny as long as I can.

7 hours ago, Prozac said:

Doesn’t pretty much all modern medicine do this? Perhaps the modern world, & especially aviation isn’t your bag. After all, god didn’t give you wings….surely he doesn’t expect you to fly. 

Dude...people acting like you (and others on here) make it much easier for me to walk away and hold true to my own personal integrity and faith. This isn't just my loss, it's a mission capability and leadership loss. Fellow officers, pilots, Airmen, and American's are ripping each other apart as things decay around us. I may be in the 1% asking for an RA, but my personal observation is around 30-50% aren't happy with any of this. I've served pretty dam successfully and well as an officer and pilot for 13+ years now. Instead of anything substantial, you attack me to make me sound like a quaker or flat earth retard because of my faith. 

I would say no....all of modern medicine doesn't do this to you. Humans have never been injected with synthetic ribonucleic acid (RNA) before these COVID-19 vaccines....most modern medicines puts chemicals directly into your blood stream, they've never hijacked and replaced cellular protein production at the individual cell level (you don't seem to have even an elementary understanding of how it works comparing it to "modern medicine"). **Cue the "RNA" vaccines have been tested for 30 years, they are amazing!!! Guess you didn't read about ADE or all of the animals that died with the RNA vaccines they tested on animals only (the reason they never went to human trials).**

And guess what, based on my secular health opinions and faith I (and my family) avoid pharmaceutical medical options unless they are the last/required option. We minimize x-rays, minimize processed food, and try to use hygiene/health products that are naturally derived without chemicals. Guess what....I've been a successful pilot and military aviator hacking the mish for 13 years even if you would rule me out for not being born with wings.

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Yeah, I'm not sure "deliberately undo and hinder my God given natural cellular processes" jives with taking *any* medication. Definitely a bridge too far, and inconsistent with any COVID-only objections I tend to support.

I'd encourage you to review how ribosomes work with cellular protein production...you would see that no other modern medical process or product has ever messed with this or used synthetic RNA. That specifically is my objection. The cool part about the constitution and religious freedom is your opinion doesn't matter as long as my belief is sincere according to the law of the land.

 

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

What people often miss is that accommodation may well be separating from the service. 

100% bro...probably the first post I've agreed with you on and I appreciate the respectful comment. I considered MLCOA/MDCOA/threats heavily before going down this road, I'm aware of where it will likely lead. It's worth it for me.

Edited by GoodSplash9
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Simply doesn't matter.  If he(assuming) "sincerely believes" this, then DoD/USAF's own rules state he should be granted the accomodation.

Unless they bow to political pressure.

Color me shocked.

Likewise at those who scoff at such held beliefs.  I pity any subordinates who came to you for help.

You don't have to agree with those beliefs, but to simply toss them aside says much.

Which part? Doesn't matter for COVID, or doesn't matter for anything?

 

Religious accommodations are not granted for many medical things, regardless of sincere beliefs. Your option is to not join. COVID is new, so there are new considerations. But if your sincere beliefs regarding COVID vaccination aren't logically consistent with other medical decisions you've made as a military member pre-COVID, then they aren't sincere beliefs, are they?

 

Don't lose the moral high ground by being reflexively anti-everything.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Which part? Doesn't matter for COVID, or doesn't matter for anything?

 

Religious accommodations are not granted for many medical things, regardless of sincere beliefs. Your option is to not join. COVID is new, so there are new considerations. But if your sincere beliefs regarding COVID vaccination aren't logically consistent with other medical decisions you've made as a military member pre-COVID, then they aren't sincere beliefs, are they?

 

Don't lose the moral high ground by being reflexively anti-everything.

Yep.

I wonder if he's got a religious accommodation for the flu shot. Since it was developed using that same fetal cell line. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20347632/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, GoodSplash9 said:

I addressed that in my RA with a whole page. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and supreme court case Frazee v. Illinois clearly establish legally that there is no denominational or previous track record metric for establishing that someone has a sincerely held religious belief. Like alot of people, I had no idea that vaccines were routinely developed, researched, tested, and grown/produced using aborted fetal stem cells. I can't go back in time, just apply my beliefs now and in the future. I won't be taking any vaccines in the future involved with aborted fetal stem cells, but the RNA/DNA is also a no-go for me. I wouldn't say it is a "weak" argument.

The real question for the air force is the whether or not the opportunity cost of approving my RA and keeping the leadership/aviation/mission benefit I have outweighs the benefit for health/readiness afforded by a 100% vaccination rate. We all know how it is going. I don't expect the DOD or AF to make a critical decision here when careers and perceptions are involved...the slim chance for a win will come in Federal courts or from congress. Hence...delay/degrade/deny as long as I can.

Dude...people acting like you (and others on here) make it much easier for me to walk away and hold true to my own personal integrity and faith. This isn't just my loss, it's a mission capability and leadership loss. Fellow officers, pilots, Airmen, and American's are ripping each other apart as things decay around us. I may be in the 1% asking for an RA, but my personal observation is around 30-50% aren't happy with any of this. I've served pretty dam successfully and well as an officer and pilot for 13+ years now. Instead of anything substantial, you attack me to make me sound like a quaker or flat earth retard because of my faith. 

I would say no....all of modern medicine doesn't do this to you. Humans have never been injected with synthetic ribonucleic acid (RNA) before these COVID-19 vaccines....most modern medicines puts chemicals directly into your blood stream, they've never hijacked and replaced cellular protein production at the individual cell level (you don't seem to have even an elementary understanding of how it works comparing it to "modern medicine"). **Cue the "RNA" vaccines have been tested for 30 years, they are amazing!!! Guess you didn't read about ADE or all of the animals that died with the RNA vaccines they tested on animals only (the reason they never went to human trials).**

And guess what, based on my secular health opinions and faith I (and my family) avoid pharmaceutical medical options unless they are the last/required option. We minimize x-rays, minimize processed food, and try to use hygiene/health products that are naturally derived without chemicals. Guess what....I've been a successful pilot and military aviator hacking the mish for 13 years even if you would rule me out for not being born with wings.

I'd encourage you to review how ribosomes work with cellular protein production...you would see that no other modern medical process or product has ever messed with this or used synthetic RNA. That specifically is my objection. The cool part about the constitution and religious freedom is your opinion doesn't matter as long as my belief is sincere according to the law of the land.

 

100% bro...probably the first post I've agreed with you on and I appreciate the respectful comment. I considered MLCOA/MDCOA/threats heavily before going down this road, I'm aware of where it will likely lead. It's worth it for me.

Your failure to adequately research medical developments before joining is your fault. Period. So you made an agreement regarding all previously-existing vaccines, regardless of how they were developed.

 

COVID has plenty of considerations that are new, and I support those who dissent to the new considerations, but "deliberately undo and hinder my God given natural cellular processes" is not at all a medically consistent statement if you take *any* medications. 

 

If that's not what you really meant, then put some more effort into what you post before getting self righteous. You (as a group) don't have many allies left, so maybe don't alienate them when they point out a bad argument. 

Edited by Lord Ratner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, pawnman said:

Pretty sure this is EXACTLY what the Kentucky study found. Infection + vaccine is better immunity than infection or vaccine alone. 

Wearing a seatbelt and having a pillow taped to your stomach is also safer than wearing a seatbelt or taping a pillow alone.

 

that doesn’t mean we need both...

 

in this case, the pillow is getting the vaccine.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bennynova said:

Wearing a seatbelt and having a pillow taped to your stomach is also safer than wearing a seatbelt or taping a pillow alone.

 

that doesn’t mean we need both...

 

in this case, the pillow is getting the vaccine.

Or... and follow with me here...seatbelts and airbags. It's like a pillow that's only there when you need it. 

Want to try a different analogy? 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Or... and follow with me here...seatbelts and airbags. It's like a pillow that's only there when you need it. 

Want to try a different analogy? 

Sure.   How about something that 99% effective (natural immunity or a vaccine).   Against a threat that only effects the military demographic at less than 1%??

 

why do we need two 99% effective solutions,?

 

we are trying to solve a 1% risk by throwing an unknown, but likely greater risk (long term and short term side effects) on top of it. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bennynova said:

Sure.   How about something that 99% effective (natural immunity or a vaccine).   Against a threat that only effects the military demographic at less than 1%??

 

why do we need two 99% effective solutions,?

 

we are trying to solve a 1% risk by throwing an unknown, but likely greater risk (long term and short term side effects) on top of it. 

1% of a large population is still a huge number.

1 in every 100 people older than 65, who were alive on day 1 of the pandemic, have now died from COVID-19. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, bennynova said:

Sure.   How about something that 99% effective (natural immunity or a vaccine).   Against a threat that only effects the military demographic at less than 1%??

 

why do we need two 99% effective solutions,?

 

we are trying to solve a 1% risk by throwing an unknown, but likely greater risk (long term and short term side effects) on top of it. 

Don't confuse "death" with "effect".

You don't have to die to be rendered ineffective by Covid.

Not to mention every base has a boatload of DoD civilians who ARE in the high-risk demographics. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bennynova said:

we are trying to solve a 1% risk by throwing an unknown, but likely greater risk (long term and short term side effects) on top of it.

You're assuming there is no long term risk for having COVID either, which we also don't know. What evidence so you have to suggest one has a higher long term risk than the other? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Waingro said:

1% of a large population is still a huge number.

1 in every 100 people older than 65, who were alive on day 1 of the pandemic, have now died from COVID-19. 

 

Careful with stats. Every year 4% of that demographic dies. And it's a mathematical certainty that there is significant overlap of the 4% and the 1%.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GoodSplash9 said:

I addressed that in my RA with a whole page. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and supreme court case Frazee v. Illinois clearly establish legally that there is no denominational or previous track record metric for establishing that someone has a sincerely held religious belief. Like alot of people, I had no idea that vaccines were routinely developed, researched, tested, and grown/produced using aborted fetal stem cells. I can't go back in time, just apply my beliefs now and in the future. I won't be taking any vaccines in the future involved with aborted fetal stem cells, but the RNA/DNA is also a no-go for me. I wouldn't say it is a "weak" argument.

The real question for the air force is the whether or not the opportunity cost of approving my RA and keeping the leadership/aviation/mission benefit I have outweighs the benefit for health/readiness afforded by a 100% vaccination rate. We all know how it is going. I don't expect the DOD or AF to make a critical decision here when careers and perceptions are involved...the slim chance for a win will come in Federal courts or from congress. Hence...delay/degrade/deny as long as I can.

Dude...people acting like you (and others on here) make it much easier for me to walk away and hold true to my own personal integrity and faith. This isn't just my loss, it's a mission capability and leadership loss. Fellow officers, pilots, Airmen, and American's are ripping each other apart as things decay around us. I may be in the 1% asking for an RA, but my personal observation is around 30-50% aren't happy with any of this. I've served pretty dam successfully and well as an officer and pilot for 13+ years now. Instead of anything substantial, you attack me to make me sound like a quaker or flat earth retard because of my faith. 

I would say no....all of modern medicine doesn't do this to you. Humans have never been injected with synthetic ribonucleic acid (RNA) before these COVID-19 vaccines....most modern medicines puts chemicals directly into your blood stream, they've never hijacked and replaced cellular protein production at the individual cell level (you don't seem to have even an elementary understanding of how it works comparing it to "modern medicine"). **Cue the "RNA" vaccines have been tested for 30 years, they are amazing!!! Guess you didn't read about ADE or all of the animals that died with the RNA vaccines they tested on animals only (the reason they never went to human trials).**

And guess what, based on my secular health opinions and faith I (and my family) avoid pharmaceutical medical options unless they are the last/required option. We minimize x-rays, minimize processed food, and try to use hygiene/health products that are naturally derived without chemicals. Guess what....I've been a successful pilot and military aviator hacking the mish for 13 years even if you would rule me out for not being born with wings.

I'd encourage you to review how ribosomes work with cellular protein production...you would see that no other modern medical process or product has ever messed with this or used synthetic RNA. That specifically is my objection. The cool part about the constitution and religious freedom is your opinion doesn't matter as long as my belief is sincere according to the law of the land.

 

100% bro...probably the first post I've agreed with you on and I appreciate the respectful comment. I considered MLCOA/MDCOA/threats heavily before going down this road, I'm aware of where it will likely lead. It's worth it for me.

Im not judging your view, just that your argument will be tough if you took all the other vaccines. No one ever thinks their own argument is weak. At least not people with actual convictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Waingro said:

1% of a large population is still a huge number.

1 in every 100 people older than 65, who were alive on day 1 of the pandemic, have now died from COVID-19. 

 

I didn’t know they were in the military demographic.   Which I specifically stated.

 

im fine with people getting it.   Some people are higher risk   Others just want to get it because it makes them feel safe    Whatev   That’s fine.    But it’s not urgent enough of a problem for the military to mandate it. 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DosXX said:

You're assuming there is no long term risk for having COVID either, which we also don't know. What evidence so you have to suggest one has a higher long term risk than the other? 

Everyone’s getting covid.   Even the vaccinated.   So they’ll have both unknown long term risks to deal with. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • M2 locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...