An Evaluation of Religious Exemptions from COVID-19 Vaccine Requirements

Nathan Chapman and I have written an evaluation of religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccine requirements. We aren't addressing the legal basis of those exemptions. Instead, the question we take up is whether certain Protestant churches--the ones in the magisterial Reformation traditions (e.g., Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians)--should endorse religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccine requirements. We consider three arguments that are made in favor of religious exemptions--the moral argument that receiving the vaccine makes one complicit in abortion, the conscience argument that the state should not override an individual Christian's conscience, and the risk argument that Christians with concerns about the safety of the vaccines therefore have a religious reason to refuse them. We find all three arguments wanting, and we conclude that churches in these Protestant traditions should not endorse religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccines.

If you want to read the analysis, you can find it in two places: Mere Orthodoxy (a Protestant online and print journal) and Canopy Forum (hosted by the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University).

Comments

[AmosArch]

A plague important enough to override the most fundamental constitutional rights but not important enough to keep the public education beast from feeding.

[Sarcastr0]

The second sentence of the OP explains why what you just said is a non-sequitur.

[gormadoc]

Eh, when you try to convince the Episcopal Church and PCUSA that they should oppose religious exemptions it does have an undercurrent of political advocacy to change the law. Those two churches are far overrepresented in the government and as otherwise influential people.

[Sidney r finkel]

Thank you.

[gormadoc]

What is the point of this? While you lump Lutherans and Presbyterians into two big groups (I can't say much about Anglicans) the reality is that there are many conservative Lutheran congregations and Presbyteries that do not agree with your interpretations of the Bible. Romans 13 does not mean complete subservience to a state, much less an explicitly non-Christian state, for such Christians. It doesn't mean, for any congregation, that Christians can't seek or benefit from exemptions that exist within the structure of the law. To my knowledge no theologian has ever criticized Christians subject Islamic law from benefiting from exemptions given to dhimmi.

I don't really see any point in trying to convince the remaining Lutherans and Presbyterians (i.e. the moderate or progressive ones) that they shouldn't oppose getting the vaccine. The mainline Presbyterian church (PCUSA) already takes this view so you're late in trying to convince them. For Lutherans the ELCA also takes that view. The LCMS and WELS have no organizational stance and emphasize that it's a personal choice while clearly favoring vaccination, though both of those are congregational and don't ascribe to quite the same ideology you do. The Episcopalian Church hasn't taken an official stance AFAIK but, knowing the leanings of their membership and the organization overall, I doubt there are many members who aren't vaccinated but also care about doctrine.

[gormadoc]

I will also point out that the mainline churches themselves have ever-dwindling influence. About 2% of the total population belongs to the PCUSA+LCMS+Episcopal congregations/churches. The organizations have far more influence in the individuals who are members rather than having a large number. They are far less numerous than Baptists (15% about 1/3 of all US Protestants) but far more rich. SBC, UMC, LDS each have more members than the three of those combined.

[Greg J]

The problem that you face is that there's no legitimate reason for anyone to support "Covid vaccine mandates", so everyone should be supporting every possible method of getting an exemption.

If the "Covid vaccine" was not total garbage from a public health perspective, then if you graphed "State Covid vaccination rate" vs "State Covid infection rate", you would find a strong inverse linear relationship. Which is to say: "vaccination rate up == infection rate down"

That is not what's happening.

So long as that remains the case, and the new Xi, I mean moronic, I mean Omicron variant is going to just make things worse for the "vaccine" proponents, there is no valid argument for getting the jab to protect other people.

Because getting the jab doesn't protect other people.

[David Nieporent]

That is not what's happening.

You really can't help beclowning yourself, can you? What exactly are you an expert in? Not law, not history, not science. Maybe you're a good insurance claims adjuster?

[Greg J]

"You really can't help beclowning yourself, can you?" No David, you can't

I'm curious, are you so stupid that you can't read and understand simple English language sentences?

Or are you so dishonest that you just don't care that your "response" has nothing to do with what your'e claiming to respond to?

The issue is not whether the "Covid vaccine" helps the people who get it have better health outcomes.

That's none of society's fucking business.

The issue is "do the 'Covid vaccines' protect other people from getting Covid?"

That is a legitimate public health question.

the answer is: No, the "Covid vaccines" do not cut the rate of Covid infections.

Or, to put it so that even someone with your limited mental capacity can understand:
Getting the jab does not protect the people around you

And because getting the jab doesn't protect the people around you, there is no legitimate public health reason to maneople get that jab.

Oh, and let me know when society starts ruling that any gay men who have sex without a condom on are personally liable for all their health bills from the STDs they catch, no requirement for insurance to pay.

Until then, you can take any whines about the "irresponsibility" of the people who don't want the jab, and shove them up your backside

[Life of Brian]

If you want to read the analysis

Otherwise known as "series of conclusory sentences in outline form." It's hard to imagine how the authors would think this sort of outcome-driven, lick-and-a-promise treatment is going to persuade anyone not already persuaded.

But I suppose it's great as a political posturing piece, as well as ammo for chronically anti-religious folks (as presaged by Finkel's fawning post above).

[Guardian253]

I am a bit surprised that many "conservative" or "libertarian" legal commenters have completely ignored the extensive case law of religious liberty in the context of prisoners. Courts have repeatedly stated that the government may not look into the sincerity of a religious belief, or at least have shied away from making determinations if a religious practice or belief is legitimate. They have at least stated that a new tenant of a religion cannot be discounted. If you cannot square the court's holdings with regards to prisoner religious freedom with a non-prisoner's religious freedom, then any analysis is faulty.

[loki13]

"I am a bit surprised that many "conservative" or "libertarian" legal commenters have completely ignored the extensive case law of religious liberty in the context of prisoners."

Whereas I am completely unsurprised, as always, that people rush in to make a comment before they even read the OP.

The second sentence of the OP:
"We aren't addressing the legal basis of those exemptions."

In addition, for those few stalwart souls who manage to make not only to the second sentence, but farther, there are actual links (LINKS!) to the full analysis.

[Greg J]

The second sentence of the OP:
"We aren't addressing the legal basis of those exemptions."

I expect that Guardian253 saw that. And correctly translated it this way:
"Yes, i know this is a legal blog, and I know we supposedly come from a libertarian perspective, but I'm really butthurt that the "law" we made for coll Indians smoking peyote and other neat drugs is now being used by those icky pro-life Christians and Republicans to stop my favorite government bullies and thugs from forcing them to do what I want them to do!"

And thought that was worthy of remark.

Which it is, to anyone who doesn't live life with his head up his backside

[ReaderY]

It’s the Conspirators’ conspiracy, and they get to post on anything they want to.

But somehow, I doubt most religious denominations will give posts on theology by outsiders a very sympathetic ear.