Religious Exemption 1

Demand for Religious Exemption from Covid-19 Vaccination

 

To whom it may concern,

Based on my understanding of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Emergency Use Authorization Act, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and other federal and state laws, I choose to exercise my right to demand a religious exemption to the requirement that I be vaccinated using the Covid-19 shots. This demand for an exemption is based on my deeply held religious beliefs pursuant to my reliance on teachings in the Holy Bible.

The Bible says, “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17 KJV). My personal convictions are inspired by my study and understanding of the Bible, and personally directed by the true and living God. I am personally convicted that I should not receive any of the three Covid-19 shots presently authorized by the FDA under the Emergency Use Authorization.

It is not my responsibility to force my personal religious convictions regarding this matter on other persons as I believe whether to receive a Covid-19 shot is personal decision to each person (Romans 14). Where scripture does not expressly instruct on a particular matter, I believe that I am required to search the Scripture myself for related truths (Romans 15:4) and to seek personal guidance from the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39; Romans 8). If I fail to submit to the personal convictions that the Holy Spirit and Scripture has impressed upon me, I will be sinning against God. I have personally searched the Scripture and sought guidance from the Holy Spirit to come to my decision.

The Bible states that the body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. We are commanded to take good care of it, not to defile it, and certainly not introduce something into it that could potentially harm it (1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and 2 Corinthians 7:1).

The Bible also outlines the fact that God created the body both “fearfully and wonderfully.” (Psalm 139:13- 16). The Covid-19 shots work as gene therapy. By manipulating genetic operations, the Covid-19 shots alter what God made (literally assuming the position of God), which I believe to be a sinful practice under these circumstances. These vaccines (by the very disclosure of the vaccine manufacturers) contain carcinogens, neurotoxins, animal viruses, animal blood, allergens, and heavy metals. As the Covid-19 shots are still in the experimental phase of study, I do not believe it would be right for me to introduce these substances into my body because they have not sufficiently been proven to me to be safe and effective. Rather, I believe they may be harmful to my body.

It is worthwhile to provide some context to these assertions by noting that COVID-19, being untreated, has a survivability rate of 99.98% under 50 years of age. Over 50, the survival rate is 99.5%. These are numbers provided by the CDC. This continues to lend credibility to the fact that it would be sinful to seek to undertake a superfluous procedure when the risk of death is substantially low. Therefore, based on guidance from the Holy Spirit and the Holy Bible, I cannot conscientiously take the Covid-19 shots under these circumstances.

Perhaps the most notably significant reason why the acceptance of these vaccines would be considered sinful centers around the fact that fetal stem cell lines from aborted babies were used in either the initial development and/or testing of the Covid-19 shots.1 By receiving the Covid-19 shots presently available, I believe it would constitute a complicit action in the act of abortion. I believe that abortion is murder and is strictly prohibited in the Bible (Exodus 20:13; Psalm 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:5; Isaiah 49:15). Psalm 127:3 says that “Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him.” The fact that aborted stem cells were involved in the origination of the three Covid-19 shots make the consumption of this vaccine an unthinkable act to me.

In addition to the religious exemption demanded, I have the legal right to be exempted from the vaccine mandate based on Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Some COVID-19 vaccines are merely authorized, not approved or licensed, by the federal government; they are Emergency Use Authorized (EUA) only. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act states that individuals to whom EUA products are administered must be informed—

         (I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;
         (II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown;             and
         (III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product,               and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.

         Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I-III).

Accordingly, the federal court held that the U.S. military could not mandate EUA vaccines to soldiers. Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (2003). The court held: “...the United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs.” Id. at 135. No court has ever upheld a mandate for an EUA vaccine, nor will they do so with the Covid-19 vaccine which has not been licensed or approved by the FDA.

In addition, young women are concerned that this vaccine may impact their ability to have children or affect an unborn child.

 

Date:_______________________ Signed:___________________________________ Name (print):______________________________

 

Date:_______________________ Pastor’s Signature:__________________________(optional)

 

Pastor (print):______________________________(optional)

 

1 https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/COVID%20Vaccine%20Page/COVID-19_Vaccine_Fetal_Cell_Handout.pdf; ; https://ldh.la.gov/assets/oph/Center-PHCH/Center-PH/immunizations/You_Have_Qs_COVID-19_Vaccine_FAQ.pdf; https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/COVID%20Vaccine%20Page/COVID-19_Vaccine_Fetal_Cell_Handout.p.

RELIGEOUS EXEMPTION 2

Dear Boss,

 

First, I request a religious exemption. Each of the manufacturers of the Covid vaccines currently available developed and confirmed their vaccines using fetal cell lines, which originated from aborted fetuses. ( https://lozierinstitute.org/an-ethics-assessment-of-covid-19-vaccine-programs/ ) For example, each of the currently available Covid vaccines confirmed their vaccine by protein testing using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. ( https://lozierinstitute.org/an-ethics-assessment-of-covid-19-vaccine-programs/ ) Partaking in a vaccine made from aborted fetuses makes me complicit in an action that offends my religious faith. As such, I cannot, in good conscience and in accord with my religious faith, take any such Covid vaccine at this time. In addition, any coerced medical treatment goes against my religious faith and the right of conscience to control one’s own medical treatment, free of coercion or force. Please provide a reasonable accommodation to my belief, as I wish to continue to be a good employee, helpful to the team.

Equally, compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine. Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinion advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect. (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/)

Three key concerns: first, informed consent is the guiding light of all medicine, in accord with the Nuremberg Code of 1947; second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees' medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their perceived medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest; and third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment, education or public accommodations upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment. As one federal court just recently held, the availability of reasonable accommodations like accounting for prior infection, antibody testing, temperature checks, remote work, other forms of testing, and the like suffice to meet any institution’s needs in lieu of masks, public shaming, and forced injections of foreign substances into the body that the FDA admits we do not know the long -term effects of.

For instance, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and "very rare." Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the virus as the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. Hence, the vaccine solves nothing. This evidentiary limitation on any employer's decision making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine. This doesn't even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient and profitable employees?

This right to refuse forced injections, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/ ). As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must "be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision" for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is.

 

Second, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines. As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business. (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-enforcement-guidance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical). An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA. The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee. If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation. The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate. This requires the employee's medical status cause a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any another means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet. Just look at the all prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages and fines.

 

Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html )

 

Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear "no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250)

 

With Regards,

 

Employee of the Year,
Thomas Paine