I don’t believe this is possible where we are at in US society. Disrespect for other beliefs leads to one’s own beliefs being disrespected.
For decades I have heard nothing less than ridicule and derision from … lets be generous and say … 20% of the population regarding the beliefs of another 20% of the population.
It is completely disingenuous to ask to “integrate and honor everyone’s beliefs” only when it is one’s own beliefs threatened - but the very next day and / or the day previously completely disregard and refuse to consider the beliefs of those you consider on the other side.
Yes - shame on the mobs. Here again - the meaning of words is important: Mob - a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.
Where is there a vax mandate? Were you forced to get a vaccine? I know several people who still haven’t got it yet. Nobody’s rounding them up or anything. They still get their Social security, EBT or whatever.
Religious freedom - In what way is your personal religious freedom being violated? Does your religion require you to have a minimum number of participants to worship? Where is that in the Bible?
Industrialization of human tissue harvesting - A bit late, but thanks for joining the party.
I personally can go either way, but I think it’s hypocritical if people flip flop according to who is “in charge”.
Has this always been your concern and will it still be your concern under a new regime - or is it just another throw-away cause to pick up or discard whenever your preferred group wins or loses?
Here is an excerpt from an article published over a year ago. This was not secret - but well known. Any kind of claim that this was being done in secret is absurd, because there is a clear paper trail in the public domain that can be found in a 10 second Google search.
Note this is the NY Times, and I have no idea if they are using the term “fetus” accurately or not.
the treatment for Covid-19 received by Mr. Trump — a cocktail of monoclonal antibodies he described as a “cure” was developed using human cells derived from a fetus aborted decades ago. Remdesivir, an antiviral drug that the president received late last week, was also developed with those cell lines. At least two companies racing to create a vaccine against the coronavirus, Moderna and AstraZeneca, are also relying on the cells. Johnson & Johnson is testing its vaccine in another so-called cell line originally produced from fetal tissue.
As participants in the [TRUMP] White House’s Operation Warp Speed, all three vaccine-makers have received federal funding.
M.I.T. Technology Review first reported that cells originally derived from an aborted fetus were used to develop Regeneron’s antibody cocktail.
A Trump administration official argued on Thursday that the president’s embracing of the treatments was not a contradiction.
The [TRUMP] administration’s policy on fetal tissue research “specifically excluded” cell lines made before June 2019, said the official, who did not wish to be identified because he was not authorized to speak about the matter.
All great points to consider @raybennett !
Last time I checked there are many federal employees that will be required to be vaccinated or lose their jobs in 2 weeks if not vaccinated (?). This could pose a conflict with peoples’ 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion. Perhaps an acceptable compromise might be to track the origin of the fetal material used. Perhaps a still born fetus akin to an organ donor might be the answer as opposed to the products from the assembly line of the Fetal Industrial Complex.
Great thing about the US, is we’ll get this sorted out.
I was wondering what the “Integral” view on this might be.
Which religion says you cannot be a member or practice if you get this vaccination?
Or are you talking about something similar to conscientious objector status - where you do not want to do a thing that is against your principles (and Republicans spent decades trying to destroy). So again, we are back to refusing to recognize (for example) men’s spiritual beliefs because he does not want to kill people in a far off land, then pursuing him with all the power of the Federal Government. There are many other similar issues over the past 50 years - and then all of a sudden wanting personal beliefs respected just for them but not for others.
The integral part - even before we can even think about approaching an integral view - is first realizing what the exact rational discussion is about.
Is it about religious freedom? Which religion is saying you can’t be a good member if you get the vaccine?
Where is the actual conflict?
Or is it just about a certain group of people wanting a double standard for them and going crazy when they can’t get that double standard?
If an employee doesn’t begin the vaccination process in that time, OPM recommends agencies begin to pursue disciplinary action, which, as the Biden administration has stated previously, can include removal or termination from federal service.
(I replied to the wrong person btw)
1 - Present a biased and only fractionally true problem
2 - Sit back and wait for others to come up with an Integral perspective. No reason for you to do any actual heavy lifting
3 - React to other’s perspectives with straw manning, deflection and name calling
4 - never actually even try present your own ideas from an integral perspective. Wait for others to try
5 - when someone tries to pin down the actual facts of the topic, go back to #1 with another issue - preferably in another thread
6 - After several days, return back to original thread with another provocative topic (return to step #1)
Yay?
Yeah, if you have a Federal job you have to follow OPM policy. That’s not really news.
But again - ignoring the point that you can still be Christian, Hindu, Muslim or whatever even if you get the vaccine - so how does this violate freedom of religion?
You see - I’ve heard this argument from Republicans so many times the past 40 years when they want to violate other people’s perceived rights - I’m just curious how this is different?
OPM policy regarding freedom to practice religion was formed long before the Biden administration - Biden is just using the existing policies as they have been enforced for decades.
A quote provided the Associated Press from Rev. Robert Jeffress, far-right evangelical pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas:
There is no credible religious argument against the vaccine. Christians who are troubled by the use of a fetal cell line for the testing of the vaccines would also have to abstain from the use of Tylenol, Pepto-Bismol, Ibuprofen and other products that used the same cell line if they are sincere in their objection.
I had not found TheConversation.com previously. Many thanks for the introduction. It’s definitely several notches above most of what gets published these days. Nice mix of non-hyperbolic deductive and inductive reasoning based articles.
Will be interesting to see how the vaccine mandates play out across our multiple health, public perception, political, policy, religious and legal domains in the coming months.
Here is another article regarding employer vaccine mandates and very few walking from their jobs.
Your combination tangential rant and ad hominem attack sort of knocked you off track Ray. It’s already posted, but that’s quite ok. You truth is very truthy.
Which person did I attack?
I ask because I don’t see that I attacked anyone. Republicans? Are you seriously going to suggest there has not been a struggle for decades with one side saying they have the right to things like wearing a religious head covering, wearing clothes of their perceived gender, bathroom usage, medical coverage for same-sex spouses, etc. etc. … and Republicans completely denying these perceived rights? Are you suggesting that me describing a conflict between Republicans and various groups is attacking Republicans? Or something else?
Without establishing who it is I’m attacking or how - that’s irony. Do you see the irony? You project that I am “ranting”, lol and that I am “attacking” someone, thus establishing me as a “bad guy” and in the same very sentence ironically claim I am using ad homonym attacks as a way for you to invalidate any rational points I am making.
Reading the article - Legal Precedent was set during George W Bush’s (Republican) administration.
Two civilian employees were fired by the Bush Administration for refusing to take a vaccination and this established the legal precedent.
The agency pointed to Mazares v. Department of Navy , where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Navy’s decision to fire two civilian employees who refused the anthrax vaccine before a deployment on a naval ship.
I don’t know of a case that officially sets precedent for DOD civilians opposing vaccinations on a kind of “conscientious objector” status. Since there are not any major religions banning vaccinations, this is really the only way to go.
The way to conscientious objector status has been paved by two centuries of Liberalism fighting for the right to not be forced to act contrary to deep personal spiritual beliefs. This was fought tooth and nail by Republican Administrations in our four most recent Military Actions: Korea, Viet Nam, Desert Shield / Storm, and Post 9-11 Iraq / Afghanistan
That’s just the historical record.
If now the anti-vax group wants to fight the Government policies that were built and reinforced over the past 100 years, they will have to take it to court - as conscientious objectors have had to do for the past 100 years and longer.
Then if I wanted to devote more time to this, I could dig up all the lgbtq court cases and how the Republican Party has fought tooth and nail in all three branches of government to keep in place policies to limit personal freedoms of Government Employees.
the [Supreme] Court declared that “[i]t is clear that such persons have the right under our law to assemble, speak, think and believe as they will. . . . It is equally clear that they have no right to work for the state in the school system on their own terms. They may work for the school system under reasonable terms laid down by the proper authorities of New York. If they do not choose to work on such terms, they are at liberty to retain their beliefs and associations and go elsewhere. Has the State thus deprived them of any right to free speech or assembly? We think not.
Justice Holmes - Appointed in 1902 by President Theodore Roosevelt (Republican), and formed the foundation of conservative policy in the 20th century on these matters
I would say that the “narrative” has been highly shaped regarding vaccine mandates in a a very similar way that Pro Life and Pro Choice has been framed.
I am assuming that many Pro Choice people have never had an abortion, even when confronted with the decision. Likewise many Pro Life many have had an abortion. The concerns are perhaps a bit more complicated than Anti-This, Pro-That. I’m not following on how LGBTQ discrimination is relevant today since hasn’t that been sorted out in our legal systems and propagated throughout State and Private organizations, just as Women’s and Racial rights also been sorted out??
Just as an example, many that are Anti State/Federally mandated Vaccines have had the vaccines.
Yes, I understand. My point is that one cannot dress like a drag queen if one has a federal job. It has been decided, starting with my Justice Holmes quote - that one is free to think and express oneself outside the workplace. OPM has policies formed over decades. I lost my medical records several times before computerization and so I got the full vaccine cocktail at least 4 times - because it was required. The Supreme Court of the US decided in 1901 that the government can require vaccines for government employees. The FDA was not formed until 6 years later, lol - so FDA approval is irrelevant with regards to that court decision. They did not say “vaccines can be require if approved by the FDA” - they said “government employees can be required to get a vaccine”.
So this all has very little to do with the Biden Administration. It’s just how it was decided by both Democratic and Republican court cases of over 100 years how the concept of freedom is handled with regards to federal employees.
The reason I mention lgbtq is that they have been struggling for decades (with Republicans opposing) for the federal government to allow them to dress in a way that expresses their identity - and this has been fought in the courts in case after case, and the Supreme Court over a hundred years has established what rights federal employees have and what rights they do not have. Anyone can be and dress as flamoyantly gay as they want in their free time, but when they come to work as a federal employee they have to follow OPM dress codes.
As a federal employee, people are not allowed to wear clothing with religious or political messages, for example. Nor are they allowed to wear KISS t-shirts. Sikhs are not allowed to carry a blade longer than 2.5 inches, even though traditionally these blades have been 3 to 9 inches.
Religious expression is not an absolute freedom for federal employees.
Not getting the vaccine isn’t a requirement for any major religion.
Yeah - it will be interesting if SCOTUS sustains or overturns the rights of employers (including government employers) or will shift to upholding the rights of employees to self expression even when it conflicts with company policy and profits. One will sustain capitalism, the other hinder capitalism and reduce competitiveness of US companies. Either way will not affect me personally, but it may be interesting.