I'm not getting the "religious objection" concept of anti-vaxxers. The Mennonite church has come out as pro-vax, and stated there there is no basis for a "religious objection". And there are people asking that we don't demonize Mennonites because some are anti-vax.
Is it enough that the church has stated there is no basis for a religious objection, even though their members still claim it? Do they need to be more proactive, and tell members to stop it or risk being ex-communicated? If a member claimed a religious exemption without foundation to dispute a seat belt law, would the church allow it? Or if someone claimed their DUI was subject to a religious exemption? Or any other violation?
These pockets of self righteous antivaxers put us all at risk. This is where variants develop, this is where breakthroughs come from, someone gets infected and then goes out into the rest of the province, spreading it like Typhoid Mary.
We are so close to beating this, the number for Winnipeg are so small, 3 per 100,000... while southern district is 7 times that high, and probably a lot higher due to a lot of unreported cases.
I'm not sure what we need to do to fix this, 5 billion doses, and the rest of the world begging for vaccine, and we have it here going bad, hoping these people come and get it.
Its just sad, especially when you see someone in their 100's die from it, after surviving everything else for 100 years, succumbing to this?
I'll break down the argument and then post the reality:
Argument:The vaccine is made from aborted fetal cells, and the Mennonite Church would not support abortion. (When mentioning the Mennonite Church, this does not refer to all Mennonites, but rather a denomination called Mennonite Church Canada). By not granting the religious exemption, the Mennonite Church is participating in benefiting from evil and forcing vaccinations - because by refusing to grant religious exemptions they are saying that they believe everyone should be forced to partake in using those aborted fetal cells and are refusing to honor people's strong objections to having any part in it.
The Reality (My response to the argument):I believe it is a bit more nuanced than straightforward. I'm pro-life and support pregnancy care centers, for the record.
When it comes to vaccines in general it is true that there have been aborted fetal cells in the 70's & 80's which were used to multiplied into many new cells over the past four or five decades, these new cells are used.
If you want to argue that since the beginning was evil the outcome is evil, I'll concede that ground, but not agree. I am not arguing that the ends justify the means. I'll provide a biblical example to try and explain my comment a bit more:
It was evil what Joseph's brothers did to him, God used it to save a nation.
It was evil what Pharroh did in demanding that all boys be killed (and many were), God used it to insert Mosses into that situation and save a nation.
These same cells are used in the manufacturing of chickenpox, rubella, Hep A, rabies, etc.
"but because by refusing to grant religious exemptions they are saying that they believe everyone should be forced to partake in using those aborted fetal cells and are refusing to honor people's strong objections to having any part in it"
I'd like to break down the quote in a couple of sections:
1) Procedurally, they are legally correct that they must use sacred texts (with proof texts) to put into their constitution and/or bylaws. Many churches worked through that procedurally when it came to LGBTQ2 marriages to protect themselves from lawsuits.
When it comes to vaccine exemptions based on religion, the same process would have to be taken. They would have to find, quote and directly correlate those biblical proof texts (it has to be an unequivocal straight line with very little room for alternate interpretation) and cite them in their constitution/bylaws to have a legal leg to stand on.
2) Refusing to grant religious exemptions is not the same thing as saying everyone needs to be forced to take a vaccine. That argument could possibly be made if they were also only holding services for those vaccinated. But still, then it would be a hard argument to win, as the church or denominational leaders could say that they are not forcing anyone to take the vaccine, rather saying that their stance is not to grant vaccine exemptions, and people are still able to attend a different church.
I probably won't respond to many of the comments on this, at least not today as I get ready to drive into WPG.
