Regarding the Religious Exemption from the Vaccine Mandate -- Guest Post by John Buckner

In the spirit of finding and using any tool, even anemic ones like Constitutional challenges presented to woke and cucked courts, we have this guest essay. We must do all we can to stop the spreading tyranny.

Here is the Department of Labor's (a branch of the Expertocracy) rules on Religious Exemptions, written before the vaccine mandates. Here is another take, from a woke firm. Another source for schools. And one propaganda source.

Even the propaganda source admits there is room for a religious exemption. Use it if you are sincere believer.

ESSAY BEGINS

I am interested in how employees' requests for Religious Exemptions will be addressed, and by what criteria.

The mandate supposedly reads: Per federal guidance, a refusal to be vaccinated does not qualify for a religious accommodation if it is only based upon personal preference, concerns about the possible effects of the vaccine, or political opinions.

But what does that really mean? It implies that the Company must administer some test about an employee's religious conviction? How can any corporation administer a ‘religious test’ and by whose or what authority?

No Religious Test

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution in discussing ‘Religious Tests’ concludes its discussion of Article 6 of the Constitution as follows:

The limitation of Article VI, Clause 3, to federal officeholders was effectively eliminated by the Supreme Court in the 1961 case, Torcaso v. Watkins. Relying upon the First Amendment religion clauses, the Court struck down religious tests for any public office in the United States. Torcaso means that not even a simple profession of belief in God---as was required of Roy Torcaso, an aspiring notary public---may now be required.

The scope of anyone’s immunity from disqualification from office on religious bases now depends upon the meaning of the Establishment and Free Exercise of Religion Clauses, not upon Article VI. At present, the central rule enunciated by the Supreme Court for Establishment Clause jurisprudence is the “endorsement” test. It stipulates all public authority---from state and federal to the most local municipal body---must never do or say anything that a reasonable person could understand to be an “endorsement” of religion, i.e., that favors adherents over non-adherents. Nothing in the neighborhood of a religious test for office could survive application of this norm.

The Establishment Clause thus totally eclipses the Religious Test Clause. Questions about the precise scope of the sort of “religious test” banned, and about whether “office[s] of public trust” include members of Congress as well as the most junior postal worker, no longer matter---save, perhaps, to historians.

I believe, since we are apparently classified as Federal Workers or contracted for by the Federal Government---hence the Vaccine Mandate; a Religious Test administered by the Corporation at the behest of the Federal Government would not survive a legal challenge.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The very first line of one Corporate Policy on Conflict of Interest states: "All...business transactions and relationships must be free from even the appearance of impropriety."

As an employee working on sensitive programs, I cannot use nor purchase legal CBD products. I cannot even be directly invested in any company involved in the production, sale, or distribution of legal CBD products.

Clearly in the matters of Ethics, Conflicts of Interest and issues of participation in drugs, lines have clearly been drawn by Corporate and Government concerns.

Likewise, the ‘taint’ of the available vaccines, developed, tested or produced through embryonic research is abhorrent to me. It impinges on my and other employee’s free exercise of religion. Mandating the use of these vaccines goes against everything that the Ethics Office purportedly stands for and represents.

Equal Protection Clause

No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Let’s discuss ‘accommodations’. In choosing not to be vaccinated, it is my understanding that I may be ‘accommodated’, by being subjected to rules of ‘accommodation’. The implication is that those who do get the vaccine will not be subjected to rules of ‘accommodation’.

Yet, and clearly, the Government does not seem to make a distinction between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated; all continue to wear masks, all continue to social distance. There seems to be no distinction. The Science says the efficacy of the vaccines decline over a period of time (hence the subject of boosters), yet the mandate nor the Corporation, make no distinction between those recently vaccinated and those vaccinated earlier in the year (with or without boosters).

Regardless of how or when you were vaccinated, no accommodation is mandated.

I wonder if the Ethics Office was consulted at all on the matter of this vaccine mandate. Or is the Ethics Office an empty shell to signify to the Government that we meet some Government Standard of Ethics? God help us all! I even question the Corporate Legal Office’s involvement other than to reduce the Corporation’s ‘exposure’.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here