Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss

[BR_MIST]

45 minutes ago, CaptainMorgan said:

Except some religious tenets are incompatible with military service. I know of Jews who adhere to all the Sabbath restrictions when they can, but they don’t put up a fuss when they’re told to fly on a Saturday. If they refused that lawful order, they would be out of a job. Also, if someone uses the argument that “the Bible tells me to,” they’re usually cherry-picking which rules they actually adhere to. I’d like to meet a service member who actually adheres to everything written in Leviticus.

And what exactly is wrong with my statement? Nobody ever got an abortion for the purpose of fetal cell research and abortion is not going away. Argue with those all you want, but you’re wrong. Even if it’s banned in the US, it will continue underground and in other countries.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your characterization of motivation for objecting to the use of fetal cells was wrong. 

In the case of religious accommodation in the military, I'd bet you'd say the druid in BMT who needs 2 hours a day to sit underneath a tree because of their religion, or the Native American who needs to smoke peyote regularly because of religion would both be incompatible with military service. Both of those religious accommodations have been granted.

With regard to your comment about Leviticus I assume you're talking about Jews correct? 

Speaking to religion in general, why should a particular religion makes sense to you as non-follower of that religion? If it made sense to you then you'd be a follower.

The DoD has decided that it wants a force reflective of the populace it protects, to include religion. These religious accommodations are then pursued in good faith. Now if the military said that religious rights are exclusively limited to that which was acceptable to state atheism then this would be a different conversation.

[glockenspiel]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Looks like the Army has joined the Navy and Air Force in firing people, including two battalion commanders.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2021/12/16/army-vax-deadline-2-battalion-commanders-relieved-discharges-begin-january-98-comply/?fbclid=IwAR3ZpBLxgeo8BNK8xJ2KgFHskTqKNeked_2FEyGSMvX2xniBwj9O4rLrv6c

Pawn get your hands out of you pants

[CaptainMorgan]

Your characterization of motivation for objecting to the use of fetal cells was wrong. 
In the case of religious accommodation in the military, I'd bet you'd say the druid in BMT who needs 2 hours a day to sit underneath a tree because of their religion, or the Native American who needs to smoke peyote regularly because of religion would both be incompatible with military service. Both of those religious accommodations have been granted.
With regard to your comment about Leviticus I assume you're talking about Jews correct? 
Speaking to religion in general, why should a particular religion makes sense to you as non-follower of that religion? If it made sense to you then you'd be a follower.
The DoD has decided that it wants a force reflective of the populace it protects, to include religion. These religious accommodations are then pursued in good faith. Now if the military said that religious rights are exclusively limited to that which was acceptable to state atheism then this would be a different conversation.

Last I checked Leviticus is still in the Old Testament and came from divine inspiration…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BR_MIST]

Bottom line here's the deal regarding religious accommodation, or just accommodation in general. If maximum readiness and good order and discipline was the single pursuit of the military then it would be composed exclusively of ideologically identical people who have been baptized into state atheism. 

As it sits, the military has decided that is not the way to go. The problem at the moment is that is seems religious accommodations are being approved based on whatever is most politically expedient. 

In addition, politics are motivated by your religion or whatever worldview your subscribe to. If politics are any indication, then I would say the worldviews of population the military is supposed to reflect are trending divergent and the military is in for a mess any way you slice it. 

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, CaptainMorgan said:

Except some religious tenets are incompatible with military service. I know of Jews who adhere to all the Sabbath restrictions when they can, but they don’t put up a fuss when they’re told to fly on a Saturday. If they refused that lawful order, they would be out of a job. Also, if someone uses the argument that “the Bible tells me to,” they’re usually cherry-picking which rules they actually adhere to. I’d like to meet a service member who actually adheres to everything written in Leviticus.

And what exactly is wrong with my statement? Nobody ever got an abortion for the purpose of fetal cell research and abortion is not going away. Argue with those all you want, but you’re wrong. Even if it’s banned in the US, it will continue underground and in other countries.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BR_MIST]

1 minute ago, CaptainMorgan said:

Last I checked Leviticus is still in the Old Testament and came from divine inspiration…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You didn't answer the question. 

[Guardian]

I’d like to meet a service member who actually adheres to everything written in Leviticus.

I’d like to meet any service member who has a religious or anti religious belief that adheres to everything captured in their belief system. It doesn’t happen. For anyone. Everyone on the face of this earth or has been on the face of this earth is a hypocrite in some fashion (with the exception of Jesus if you are a Christian). So that I believe is a straw man argument. Go ahead and knock it down.

[Guardian]

Last I checked Leviticus is still in the Old Testament and came from divine inspiration…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct. Point being?

[Blue]

12 hours ago, CaptainMorgan said:

I know what side effect you’re likely to get from not getting the vaccine: administrative separation prior to reaching 20 (and no, sanctuary doesn’t protect you from that).
One way or another you’re going to get poked; I’d take the needle over the shaft if I were you.

For some, their principles are more important than taking the King's schilling.  To each his own.

[Guardian]

Case can be made that some religions instruct you not to violate your conscious. In a RA type of way.

[VMFA187]

Hey Pawnman and everyone else, look! You can get "super immunity" if you are fully vaccinated AND get covid after!

COVID vaccination and previous infection may deliver 'super immunity' (usatoday.com)

Wonder if uber leftists are going to throw covid parties after they are fully vaccinated so they can catch covid and then claim their moral superiority through their super immunity. 😆

[Swizzle]

1 hour ago, BR_MIST said:

...If maximum readiness and good order and discipline was the single pursuit of the military then it would be composed exclusively of ideologically identical people who have been baptized into state atheism. 

...

Have you seen/been to PME? Heard the good doctrine books?

Remember to check your boxes!

I half jest.

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, Blue said:

For some, their principles are more important than taking the King's schilling.  To each his own.

But not for anyone on this forum so far.

[Sua Sponte]

[BR_MIST]

18 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Geez that's harsh. Pretty sure if you can't get Comirnaty you can't comply with the previous order..... not a lawyer though. 

[Waingro]

4 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

Hey Pawnman and everyone else, look! You can get "super immunity" if you are fully vaccinated AND get covid after!

COVID vaccination and previous infection may deliver 'super immunity' (usatoday.com)

Wonder if uber leftists are going to throw covid parties after they are fully vaccinated so they can catch covid and then claim their moral superiority through their super immunity. 😆

Yes, NPR had an article about this three months ago. The funniest part is that the cited study makes a strong case for getting an mRNA vaccine, especially if you've been previously infected, rather than in spite of it.

Since you decided that getting the vaccine was in your best interest after all, the findings of this study might be good news.

[pawnman]

14 minutes ago, Waingro said:

Yes, NPR had an article about this three months ago. The funniest part is that the cited study makes a strong case for getting an mRNA vaccine, especially if you've been previously infected, rather than in spite of it.

Since you decided that getting the vaccine was in your best interest after all, the findings of this study might be good news.

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

[Sim]

 

[Sim]

 

[Sim]

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.”). 

 

[GoodSplash9]

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.

 

 

[GoodSplash9]

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.”

[Prozac]

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. 

[MCO]

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.

[Lord Ratner]

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.