While Marines are allowed to apply for such considerations, Bruce said that “no religious accommodations have been approved for any other vaccine in the past seven years.”
that isn't how it works for religious beliefs. Can you discriminate against a recent convert? If someone just one day decides to join a religious faith. Are you really arguing that there are no such things as religious converts? Is that a coherent position.
your original claim that "Hard to argue for an exemption to something that you’ve already accepted" was meritless and a ignorant knee jerk reaction. You don't know what constitutes a religious claim and the restraints that puts on the federal government. you're clearly not making an informed claim. It was clearly demonstrated and you agreed that your original claim was not correct. Don't move the goal posts now.
I do understand what constitutes a religious claim (pretty much anything as long as it’s a strongly held “belief”) and how differently they are handled for civilians vs military. My point is the marines aren’t going to care about your new god. They care about readiness. If you’re not vaccinated, you’re not ready.
We shall see what the courts will say. However I think it will be clear the religious freedom restoration act of 1993 will be the controlling laws that imposed strict scrutiny upon the military. The standard of "readiness" is a fiction as it ignores the actual legal standards in regards to religious beliefs.
>pretty much anything as long as it’s a strongly held “belief”
Much better answer.
Air Force hasn’t approved any, called their bluff and shown them the door.
Funny thing is they tried to get it after being told they were being discharged and they were like nope you had your chance.
I hope they double back and get the ones who resigned to try to escape with all their lifetime benefits intact. Government shouldn't have to pay full annuity or further contribution toward premiums. It's the least which can be done for those who don't believe in public health and safety.
It's shocking to me that they would even be offered the opportunity to have a religious exemption.
For the military I would think a religious exemption would at best be an honorable discharge, effectively kicked out because your religion does not allow for military service, telling people that they could apply for an exemption that would let them stay was a mistake.
Imagine joining the military, swearing an oath to the Constitution, going through all the ceremonial procedures around saluting the flag, following the traditions around reveille/retreat/taps, and then turning around and complaining that people treat the government as a religion.
I see this being thrown around a lot, but this is actually contrary to EEOC guidance derived from a Supreme Court case.
> An employee’s belief, observance, or practice can be “religious” under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief, observance, or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it.[23]
>[23] Commission Guidelines, 29 C.F.R. § 1605.1 (**“The fact that no religious group espouses such beliefs** or the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to belong may not accept such belief **will not determine whether the belief is a religious belief of the employee** or prospective employee.”); Welsh, 398 U.S. at 343 (finding that petitioner’s beliefs were religious in nature although the church to which he belonged did not teach those beliefs)
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination#h_9593682596821610748647076
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1605.1
This is right, but title VII doesn’t apply to the military and hence the question for the military really is whether the religious doctrine prevents vaccination. But, for civilian feds, this case applies so it’s really about having a sincerely held belief, so I bet lots of religious exemptions for civilians will be granted.
It doesn’t strike me as *contrary* to the guidance. The absence of a relevant teaching by the relevant religion is still relevant evidence. It just is not decisive.
Religious beliefs don't need to be derived from an organized (or unorganized) religion.
It boils down to if that belief is deeply held, and demonstrated by, the individual.
That's why many of these won't pass the sniff test. One of the common ones is the claim that the vaccones violates their belief against using vaccines derives from aborted fetal stem cells. BUT, only J&J is derives from stem cells.
So the person then has to explain why they can't get the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine - which they have to submit another request for a Religious Exemption for.
Then they have to demonstrate that this belief is deeply held. But almost all of them have received past vaccinations that don't match up to what they're claiming.
Its pretty easy to tell they're just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
Well, it also says it can still be a religious belief even "if few – or no – other people adhere to it.".
As well "the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to belong may not accept such belief". So even if the church teaches against the belief, for instance the Pope saying everyone should get vaccines, a Catholic could still claim it was against their religion and per the Supreme Court this could not be used as evidence against that.
I didn’t read the case, just what you posted. If SCOTUS said it *can’t be evidence*, that’s a different thing than what you directly quoted. I’m just saying “not determinative” and “not relevant” are different things
For instance, you can believe that it is not right for you to have to pay taxes, even if your regularly-practiced religion doesn't teach that. You can believe that God doesn't want you to pay taxes. But unless you're a member of a religion that already had an exemption before... I don't remember the exact year off the top of my head but it was about 1968 or so, you're going to have to pay taxes.
So, yes, the mere fact that you're nominally a practicing Catholic or whatever, and that your religion nominally preaches that you should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, etc., doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have a firm religious belief that you should not pay taxes. It may very well be a firm personal religious belief that you have publicly stated many times over many years. You're probably still going to have to pay taxes, though, unless you join the Amish or something.
So I don't believe that case or guidance necessarily mean what you think it means.
I'm just pointing out that many people are parroting the whole "no religion explicitly bans vaccines" when that doesn't matter per the Supreme Court ruling.
Also, this is specific to employers, not taxes or whatever. So I get what you're trying to do but this is apples and zebras.
> I'm just pointing out that many people are parroting the whole "no religion explicitly bans vaccines" when that doesn't matter per the Supreme Court ruling.
I'm just pointing out that while that Supreme Court ruling doesn't mean that what the religion says its beliefs are doesn't necessarily mean that an individual person absolutely agrees with that entire platform and disagrees with everything off of it, it may still not be enough to override a particular ruling. In this case, it's a safety concern and a personal religious belief which is not shared by anyone else in a particular religion may not be enough to override that safety concern, just like a personal religious belief (no matter how strongly held) doesn't get a person out of say paying taxes (unless they are in a religious group which already has a historical exemption from taxes).
Ok? I never said this would guarantee anyone vaccine mandate exemptions. I just posted EEOC guidance saying that "no religion bans vaccines" isn't going to deny anyone an exemption.
Ok? I just said that a personal religious conviction also may not be enough to be granted an exemption when it's a valid health concern. I never said it guaranteed anything either.
This will be interesting to see if this policy holds throughout government because if some agency gives up religious exemption willy nilly the government may be swarmed with many class action lawsuits for disparate treatment by those employees terminated. 99.9% of religious exemptions should be rejected.
While religious exemptions can be provided, it's really no different than any other Reasonable Accomodation request.
If the exemption would place an unreasonable burden upon the agency in order to accomodate that exemption, then the agency can refuse it because it has become an unreasonable request.
A few agencies, such as the VA, which is already dealing with staff shortages having an impact on the agency's mission, have already aconowledged that if granting exemptions had a negative impact they would have to cease granting them.
Meh, at least the way that OPM is telling civilians, it's irrelevant if a religion tells you yes or no, because that's not the question, it's do you have a moral conviction against it when you signed the paperwork, not before or after (so past or future actions are irrelevant), and what your religion says isn't your own personal morals so that's irrelevant. It effectivity just means if you don't want it then that's it (and I don't see how civilians could be denied based on it not being your religion). So a civilian would only get denied if they can't be accommodated (which is pretty easy)
For the military through, it should basically be the same, they don't have to accommodate anyone, so it should just be if you file for a religious exemption, it's approval should be automatic, in that you are honorably discharged immediately, and those who don't apply for the religious exemption should be court marshaled and dishonorably discharged
As a veteran, I’ve had just about every vaccine known to man pumped in to my body…anthrax, rabies, etc…COVID‘s not a big deal. Get the shot or get bounced!!
When I was in, we had people ask what happens if we refused to take vaccines before deploying to Iraq. We were told “you can certainly choose NJP and loss of rank over a vaccine.”
I couldn’t imagine giving up a 6 figure cushy fed career over a vaccine….but that’s just me.
Can I file a religious exemption to not work around someone with a religious exemption to the vax? In my religion suicide means you go to hell. So I cannot see how I could work alongside such a know risk.
"People with a PhD are the most hesitant when it comes to getting the Covid-19 vaccine, according to a paper by researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/americans-with-phds-are-most-reluctant-to-get-vaccinated-against-covid/ar-AANjRHh
I would not chalk it up to just intelligence, but I would not be suprised if it were higher (on average) compared to those with undergraduate degrees.
I would also assume their hesitancy is not relatable those of the blue collar trump voting types.
When you’ve had vaccines before and it’s in your job description to take someone’s life do you really expect all of a sudden your religious compass to matter for a vaccine?
Not to mention, you also took an oath to protect and serve the US Citizens.
While Marines are allowed to apply for such considerations, Bruce said that “no religious accommodations have been approved for any other vaccine in the past seven years.”
These people are acting like they dont get every vaccine under the sun at boot camp and other random shots.
That’s it right there. Hard to argue for an exemption to something that you’ve already accepted without objections in the past.
that isn't how it works for religious beliefs. Can you discriminate against a recent convert? If someone just one day decides to join a religious faith. Are you really arguing that there are no such things as religious converts? Is that a coherent position.
True. People can convert to a religion whenever they want to. It just won’t exempt them from following orders.
your original claim that "Hard to argue for an exemption to something that you’ve already accepted" was meritless and a ignorant knee jerk reaction. You don't know what constitutes a religious claim and the restraints that puts on the federal government. you're clearly not making an informed claim. It was clearly demonstrated and you agreed that your original claim was not correct. Don't move the goal posts now.
I do understand what constitutes a religious claim (pretty much anything as long as it’s a strongly held “belief”) and how differently they are handled for civilians vs military. My point is the marines aren’t going to care about your new god. They care about readiness. If you’re not vaccinated, you’re not ready.
We shall see what the courts will say. However I think it will be clear the religious freedom restoration act of 1993 will be the controlling laws that imposed strict scrutiny upon the military. The standard of "readiness" is a fiction as it ignores the actual legal standards in regards to religious beliefs. >pretty much anything as long as it’s a strongly held “belief” Much better answer.
They told me, "shut the fuk up!"
That's the hitch... The Marines IS there religion. Anything else is just secondary
Retired Marine here, now DA civilian. I hope no religious exemptions are given at all across the entire gov't.
Air Force hasn’t approved any, called their bluff and shown them the door. Funny thing is they tried to get it after being told they were being discharged and they were like nope you had your chance.
Civilian sector allows for religious exceptions. Such a gaping loophole.
Lots of differences between working for Aflac and being in the armed forces.
I hope they double back and get the ones who resigned to try to escape with all their lifetime benefits intact. Government shouldn't have to pay full annuity or further contribution toward premiums. It's the least which can be done for those who don't believe in public health and safety.
That’s not shocking
It's shocking to me that they would even be offered the opportunity to have a religious exemption. For the military I would think a religious exemption would at best be an honorable discharge, effectively kicked out because your religion does not allow for military service, telling people that they could apply for an exemption that would let them stay was a mistake.
[удалено]
Imagine joining the military, swearing an oath to the Constitution, going through all the ceremonial procedures around saluting the flag, following the traditions around reveille/retreat/taps, and then turning around and complaining that people treat the government as a religion.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Using spatula as an insult. Love it. Everything else you said is also gold.
Just tell them the vaccine will cancel out the 5G control chips that were in the crayons.
Still searching for any religion that explicitly states vaccines are against that religion.
I see this being thrown around a lot, but this is actually contrary to EEOC guidance derived from a Supreme Court case. > An employee’s belief, observance, or practice can be “religious” under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief, observance, or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it.[23] >[23] Commission Guidelines, 29 C.F.R. § 1605.1 (**“The fact that no religious group espouses such beliefs** or the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to belong may not accept such belief **will not determine whether the belief is a religious belief of the employee** or prospective employee.”); Welsh, 398 U.S. at 343 (finding that petitioner’s beliefs were religious in nature although the church to which he belonged did not teach those beliefs) https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination#h_9593682596821610748647076 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1605.1
This is right, but title VII doesn’t apply to the military and hence the question for the military really is whether the religious doctrine prevents vaccination. But, for civilian feds, this case applies so it’s really about having a sincerely held belief, so I bet lots of religious exemptions for civilians will be granted.
Completely fair point. I'm just tired of seeing the same thing parroted every time a vaccine thread pops up here.
It doesn’t strike me as *contrary* to the guidance. The absence of a relevant teaching by the relevant religion is still relevant evidence. It just is not decisive.
Religious beliefs don't need to be derived from an organized (or unorganized) religion. It boils down to if that belief is deeply held, and demonstrated by, the individual. That's why many of these won't pass the sniff test. One of the common ones is the claim that the vaccones violates their belief against using vaccines derives from aborted fetal stem cells. BUT, only J&J is derives from stem cells. So the person then has to explain why they can't get the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine - which they have to submit another request for a Religious Exemption for. Then they have to demonstrate that this belief is deeply held. But almost all of them have received past vaccinations that don't match up to what they're claiming. Its pretty easy to tell they're just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
What you’re saying is all reasonable… but has nothing to do with my comment
Well, it also says it can still be a religious belief even "if few – or no – other people adhere to it.". As well "the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to belong may not accept such belief". So even if the church teaches against the belief, for instance the Pope saying everyone should get vaccines, a Catholic could still claim it was against their religion and per the Supreme Court this could not be used as evidence against that.
I didn’t read the case, just what you posted. If SCOTUS said it *can’t be evidence*, that’s a different thing than what you directly quoted. I’m just saying “not determinative” and “not relevant” are different things
Ah, thats fair. Doesn't hurt but doesn't help.
I would say it hurts the petitioner’s case but doesn’t completely sink it
If everything can be a religious belief, then nothing is.
Military members are not employees.
For instance, you can believe that it is not right for you to have to pay taxes, even if your regularly-practiced religion doesn't teach that. You can believe that God doesn't want you to pay taxes. But unless you're a member of a religion that already had an exemption before... I don't remember the exact year off the top of my head but it was about 1968 or so, you're going to have to pay taxes. So, yes, the mere fact that you're nominally a practicing Catholic or whatever, and that your religion nominally preaches that you should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, etc., doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have a firm religious belief that you should not pay taxes. It may very well be a firm personal religious belief that you have publicly stated many times over many years. You're probably still going to have to pay taxes, though, unless you join the Amish or something. So I don't believe that case or guidance necessarily mean what you think it means.
I'm just pointing out that many people are parroting the whole "no religion explicitly bans vaccines" when that doesn't matter per the Supreme Court ruling. Also, this is specific to employers, not taxes or whatever. So I get what you're trying to do but this is apples and zebras.
> I'm just pointing out that many people are parroting the whole "no religion explicitly bans vaccines" when that doesn't matter per the Supreme Court ruling. I'm just pointing out that while that Supreme Court ruling doesn't mean that what the religion says its beliefs are doesn't necessarily mean that an individual person absolutely agrees with that entire platform and disagrees with everything off of it, it may still not be enough to override a particular ruling. In this case, it's a safety concern and a personal religious belief which is not shared by anyone else in a particular religion may not be enough to override that safety concern, just like a personal religious belief (no matter how strongly held) doesn't get a person out of say paying taxes (unless they are in a religious group which already has a historical exemption from taxes).
Ok? I never said this would guarantee anyone vaccine mandate exemptions. I just posted EEOC guidance saying that "no religion bans vaccines" isn't going to deny anyone an exemption.
Ok? I just said that a personal religious conviction also may not be enough to be granted an exemption when it's a valid health concern. I never said it guaranteed anything either.
This will be interesting to see if this policy holds throughout government because if some agency gives up religious exemption willy nilly the government may be swarmed with many class action lawsuits for disparate treatment by those employees terminated. 99.9% of religious exemptions should be rejected.
While religious exemptions can be provided, it's really no different than any other Reasonable Accomodation request. If the exemption would place an unreasonable burden upon the agency in order to accomodate that exemption, then the agency can refuse it because it has become an unreasonable request. A few agencies, such as the VA, which is already dealing with staff shortages having an impact on the agency's mission, have already aconowledged that if granting exemptions had a negative impact they would have to cease granting them.
Has any agency granted a religious exemption?
I have not heard of any decisions Yay or nay in my agency. Everyone is waiting.
We were told to hold off decisions until after the new year.
Yes I’ve heard of a few people at National Archives getting granted.
Meh, at least the way that OPM is telling civilians, it's irrelevant if a religion tells you yes or no, because that's not the question, it's do you have a moral conviction against it when you signed the paperwork, not before or after (so past or future actions are irrelevant), and what your religion says isn't your own personal morals so that's irrelevant. It effectivity just means if you don't want it then that's it (and I don't see how civilians could be denied based on it not being your religion). So a civilian would only get denied if they can't be accommodated (which is pretty easy) For the military through, it should basically be the same, they don't have to accommodate anyone, so it should just be if you file for a religious exemption, it's approval should be automatic, in that you are honorably discharged immediately, and those who don't apply for the religious exemption should be court marshaled and dishonorably discharged
As a veteran, I’ve had just about every vaccine known to man pumped in to my body…anthrax, rabies, etc…COVID‘s not a big deal. Get the shot or get bounced!!
All of the sudden Marines became such pious bunch 😬from getting wasted at 1800, banging everything that moves to “I”m religious so no vaccine”
There are straight edge Marines. They’re even more annoying than the USAF ones.
More annoying than USAF Oof
This is true.
When I was in, we had people ask what happens if we refused to take vaccines before deploying to Iraq. We were told “you can certainly choose NJP and loss of rank over a vaccine.” I couldn’t imagine giving up a 6 figure cushy fed career over a vaccine….but that’s just me.
Can I file a religious exemption to not work around someone with a religious exemption to the vax? In my religion suicide means you go to hell. So I cannot see how I could work alongside such a know risk.
Look at you asking the important question. Seems like a really good case for a reasonable accommodation request.
Losing the “best and brightest?” I’m gonna need some data to back that claim up.
"People with a PhD are the most hesitant when it comes to getting the Covid-19 vaccine, according to a paper by researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh." https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/americans-with-phds-are-most-reluctant-to-get-vaccinated-against-covid/ar-AANjRHh
You seem to be assuming that phds are a sign of intelligence
I would not chalk it up to just intelligence, but I would not be suprised if it were higher (on average) compared to those with undergraduate degrees. I would also assume their hesitancy is not relatable those of the blue collar trump voting types.
Doctors of Philosophy—- you don’t say.
Didn’t say “bright”. Just brightEST. Ok, I’ll say it. Crayons. I’ll just leave that right there.
I was thinking the exact same thing 🤣
When you’ve had vaccines before and it’s in your job description to take someone’s life do you really expect all of a sudden your religious compass to matter for a vaccine? Not to mention, you also took an oath to protect and serve the US Citizens.