Are there studies that show that people that claim a religious exemption to getting the shots are much less prone to getting and/or spreading Covid? Does sincere belief create a magic bubble that Covid cannot penetrate?
No.
No.
A lot of the rationale for ‘religious’ exemptions seems to be centered around the supposed use of pluripotent stem cell lines originally derived from aborted fetuses. Of course, these weren’t use to develop or test the actual vaccines but rather in the development of mRNA-based technologies, and the same cell lines have been used for testing thousands of pharmaceuticals including many common over-the-counter medications, none of which any major religion takes any issue with.
As far as I have found, the leaders of all major religious faiths and branches have advocated for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, many going so far as to say it is a religious and civic duty to protect their fellow man, so bullshit, bullshit, bullshit on people claiming that their ‘religion’ prohibits it; it is just a fringe ‘interpretation’ (using that word loosely because no major religious text has anything to say on the topic of vaccines) that a treatment derived from individual human cells, however derived, is morally prohibited. If these people had cancer and their oncologist recommended a treatment developed using pluripotent stem cells (as many modern cancer treatments are) I have to wonder if they’d be so cavalier about leaving their fate in the hands of an invisible celestial judge. I suspect faced with an actual and immediate threat instead of a hypothetical (if also very real and prolific) would have them re-writing their moral strictures forthwith.
Stranger
Individual members of a religion might decide that even a remote use of fetal cells somewhere in the development and/or testing of a particular vaccine violates their beliefs and entitles them to a religious exemption. It becomes harder to view that as legitimate when leaders of their faths have made clear that use of such vaccines is not only compatible with the faith, but recommended. It’s even tougher to accept when people seek out religious exemptions when their true motivations appear far different.
A case in point is Nick Rolovich, who lost his job as Washington State football coach when he refused to be vaccinated against Covid-19 despite a mandate for state employees. Rolovich, who’s Catholic, unsuccessfully sought a religious exemption from vaccination.
As ESPN reports, WSU went out of its way to answer Rolovich’s concerns about the vaccine.
"On April 21, Rolovich was granted an audience with Dr. Guy Palmer, a world-renowned WSU regents professor of pathology and infectious diseases…
“Palmer completed a postdoctoral fellowship in vaccine immunology, leads disease control programs in Africa and Latin America and has been heavily involved in WSU’s COVID-19 testing program and vaccine rollout. He is considered one of the foremost experts on vaccines in the state of Washington.”
“Over about an hour, Rolovich drove a conversation that focused on topics that were consistent with what Palmer said has been shared by the “anti-vax crowd on social media” over the past several years.”
“Kind of typical ones: Is Bill Gates involved with the vaccines? Does [Gates] hold a patent on the vaccines?” Palmer recalled to ESPN. “He asked whether SV40 is in the vaccines and whether that could be a dangerous thing. And the answer to that is no.”…
“While Palmer left what he called “a very cordial conversation” unsure if Rolovich would get vaccinated, he felt the coach’s primary concerns were about possible side effects.”
“I think it’s fair to say that was his major hesitancy,” Palmer said. (Rolovich did not bring up any religious beliefs he felt could be in conflict with taking a vaccine, Palmer said.)"
So, it’s evident that the “religion” leading to Rolovich’s vaccine refusal is actually the antivax religion.
AFAIK there are two exemption arguments, broadly speaking:
-
the idea that the Covid vaccine has aborted fetus stuff in it;
-
the idea that the Covid vaccine is either the mark of the Beast, or paving the way for it
Actually, I am not aware of religious objections having been expressed as clearly as has been done herein.
Everything I heard, was that claims of religious objection should be afforded considerable deference, and need not be consistent (i.e., the objector may not have objected to other similar treatment.). Much of the discussion I heard was in the context of what an employer could ask if an employee claims a religious exemption to vaccination. They said such claim did not need to be a part of any organized creed, and need not be consistent with the individual’s past practices. My impression was that a lot of conservative nutcakes who had happily received all manner of healthcare and vaccinations in the past could just claim they had a religious objection to THIS vax.
I am pretty opposed to magical thinking and organized religion, but I recognize that religion enjoys considerable protection under the US Constitution. But this nontheist has been pretty surprised at the lack of even mild criticism of such blanket protection, given the clear significant public interest to the contrary, and what struck me as the dubious or nonexistent basis for claimed exemptions.
I’d support a policy saying you can object to receiving the fax, but that will be interpreted as objection to receiving any medical treatment should you get covid.
Regardless of the specific details of a given religious objection to a vaccine, the broader reasoning for religious exemptions is:
Where free exercise conflicts with legitimate state interests is always thorny and contentious. Historically, with regards to vaccines, religious objections have generally been raised by a small enough proportion of the populace that it’s usually been possible to grant exemptions to those that strongly desired them while still achieving “herd immunity”. But, of course, that’s been controversial.
Currently, California and Connecticutt don’t allow religious exemptions from school immunization requirements. All other states allow some form of religious and/or philosophical exemption.
The Conway Regional Health System in Arkansas took a step that I thought was pretty smart, and I would like to see it repeated.
For people who claimed that they couldn’t take the vaccine because of the fetal stem cell issue, the Health System made those people sign an attestation that they were also refusing to use any other medicines that were developed with those fetal cells.
It’s quite a list (and it’s a partial list)!
Here’s what they included on their attestation:
Tylenol
Pepto Bismol
Aspirin
Tums
Lipitor
Senokot
Xigris
Motrin
Ibuprofen
Maalox
Simvastatin
Ex-Lax
Zocor
Zostavax
HIV-l
Tylenol Cold and flu
Benadryl
Sudafed
Albuterol
Preparation H
Enbrel
MMR Vaccine
Acetaminophen
Claritin
Zoloft
Suphedrine
Prilosec OTC
Azithromycin
Varilrix
Havrix
I really don’t think that very many contemporary Americans, no matter how deeply held their religious convictions, can honestly say they that they don’t use anything on that list.
I don’t think anybody willing to lie about a religious exemption would hesitate one second before lying about the taking of any and all of those drugs.
Sad but true. I was hoping it would at least make them think. But they’re probably beyond that, too.
Heck for some of these folks, when faced with an actual monetary reward, they re-write their moral strictures pretty quickly.
“I will never take the vaccine, it goes against my religious sensibilities”
“Here’s $200 to get vaccinated”
“Where do I sign up?”
I don’t like the idea of a government board having a gotcha test and ultimately deciding if your religious belief meets their test of consistency. The whole idea of freedom of religion is that it is a personal belief that the government cannot meddle in. To me this would be like saying that the government permits you to go to the Baptist church but only if you prove you don’t fornicate or support same sex marriage. If you do, then you aren’t really a Baptist, so no church for you.
Bull shit. NOBODY here is talking about telling people if or where they can go to church.
I can’t wait for folks to refuse to pay their taxes because this goes against their religious beliefs. Does not matter if they paid taxes without a complaint in the past. It does not matter if the church they go to tells them to pay their taxes. It does not matter if there is no actual religious text that says they should not pay taxes.
What matters is that at this moment, they hold a sincere belief that paying taxes goes against their personal religious sensibilities. It is a personal belief that the government cannot meddle in. The government has no business deciding if their anti-tax belief meets their test of consistency.
I agree. We shouldn’t be testing peoples’ beliefs to see if they meet any standard of “religious exemption”; we should just not have any opt-outs for something that isn’t about any kind of religious belief and that represents a threat to public health. While we’re at it, churches and religious institutions also shouldn’t be able to claim tax-free status, particularly if they are collecting money for the purpose of building fancier churches or funding a fleet of private jets for the leaders.
I’m glad we could resolve that.
Stranger
No, but they are making a decision about whether you are really religious enough/the right kind of religion/consistent in your faith to meet the exemption.
Or preaching politics from the pulpit and telling their members who to vote for…
Agreed.
Well, we were halfway there at least. 
I’m with you. I think that if it is a generally applicable law, with no trace of animus towards a religious belief, done for a secular purpose, then there should be no exemption for a religiously held belief.
Your conclusion skips the “slippery slope” argument and goes straight for “Jumping off the cliff”.