Legal & Documents Resources Center for the Unvaccinated Thread

budoslavic

Owl
Orthodox
Gold Member
Thanks for the post. What is the "Social Life Document"?

XII. Problems of bioethics - Scroll down to "XII. 7...".


For those who wish to learn more about "The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church", go to this link here:


Also, you'll find "XII. 7" mentioned frequently in the religious exemptions documents links via this thread's first post.
 

budoslavic

Owl
Orthodox
Gold Member
Cross post from the Coronavirus Vaccine thread.


Torba: Is your current employer forcing you to inject a foreign substance into your body in order to retain work? Are you a business owner who doesn’t do this and is looking to hire? Join the No Vax Mandate Job Board on Gab:
 

budoslavic

Owl
Orthodox
Gold Member
Via Torba's post

Vax Mandate Religious Exemption Template For College Students

This afternoon my twin brothers received a letter from their College letting them know six days before they start classes that the college will be mandating vaccines for all students. How convenient.

03a77365e46cf331-614x1024.jpg


Thankfully they have the option to apply for a religious exemption. I worked with them to draft their exemption request and thought it could be helpful to other college students out there who are facing the same insane abuse of their religious liberty and bodily autonomy. I hope it helps.

Religious Exemption Template For College Students​


To whom it may concern,

As a Christian I request a religious exemption from the University’s vaccine mandate. The Bible tells us that before God formed us in the womb He knew us (Jeremiah 1:5) and that children are a heritage from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5.) In Proverbs 6:16-19 God tells us that there are six things the Lord hates and seven that are detestable to Him, one of those being the shed of innocent blood. Psalm 139:13-16 tells us that God knits us together in our mother’s womb.

God cherishes all life in His Creation, including the life of the unborn, and as a Christian I follow and obey God’s Word.

Each of the manufactures of the Covid vaccines currently available developed and confirmed their vaccines using fetal cell lines, which originated from aborted fetuses. ( https://lozierinstitute.org/an-ethics-assessment-of-covid-19-vaccine-programs/ )

Partaking in a vaccine made from aborted fetuses makes me complicit in an action that offends my religious faith and belief that all life, including the life of unborn children, is sacred and Holy.

As such, I cannot, in good conscience and in accord with my religious faith, take any such Covid vaccine at this time. As a Christian, I support all life. This position is not limited to opposing abortion; it extends to opposing both COVID vaccines tested using aborted fetal cell lines and a vaccine mandate that may, based on available evidence, cause infertility in females and/or birth defects in future children.

  1. All three vaccines utilize the Spike protein. Recent studies, (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902) and (https://www.contagionlive.com/view/spike-protein-of-sars-cov-2-virus-alone-can-cause-damage-to-lungs) indicate the Spike protein alone (without coronavirus infection per se) is enough to cause damage, inducing symptoms similar to catching COVID-19. This fact appears to have come as a surprise to the vaccine developers. (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...three-easy-steps/id1471581521?i=1000525032595)
  2. The three vaccines were designed to anchor the Spike protein to the cell; the Spike protein was not supposed to flow freely in the blood. After injection, the Spike protein was supposed to initially stay in and around the injection site, then eventually end up in the liver to “get chewed up by various destructive enzymes.” (https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/05/04/spike-protein-behavior)
    Screen-Shot-2021-08-24-at-9.59.31-PM.png
  3. However, the Pfizer data show something different happening in reality: a. During the initial 8 hours after injection, the Spike protein is flowing freely in both the blood plasma and whole blood. This indicates that the “anchoring” did not work. This was not supposed to happen. b. The Spike protein is then concentrating in both the ovaries and bone marrow. This was not supposed to happen either. The Spike protein was supposed to end up in the liver to “get chewed up by various destructive enzymes.”
  4. Thus far, there is only one year of data available on these three vaccines; nobody knows what the long-term effects will be. This makes Point (b) particularly concerning. Concentration of the Spike protein in the ovaries suggests infertility or birth defects as long-term effects, and concentration in the bone marrow suggests leukemia or autoimmune disorders.
In addition, any coerced medical treatment goes against my religious faith and the right of conscience to control one’s own medical treatment, free of coercion or force. Furthermore, there is evidence that the three COVID vaccines are not clinically safe. The AMERICA’S FRONTLINE DOCTORS, et al. v. XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al. complaint mentions some of this evidence, including myocarditis and pericarditis especially in young men, per the CDC. (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html.)

As a Christian, I believe that any risk of infertility – for anyone – is an unacceptably high risk. Forcing anyone to take this risk by mandating vaccination when the safer alternative of prophylactic ivermectin is available and known is unethical, inhumane, and in violation of my Christian faith. When I was a young child I had no say in the matter as to which vaccines were given to me, but as an adult I have made the moral and conscious decision to not partake in any vaccines going forward that utilize fetal cell lines at any stage of development or testing.

Please provide a reasonable accommodation to my belief, as I wish to continue to be a good student and eventually a proud graduate of this institution.

Sincerely,

________________________________
 

budoslavic

Owl
Orthodox
Gold Member

Will Military Mandate COVID Vaccines? Know Your Rights.​

With the Armed Forces projecting a COVID vaccine mandate by Sept. 1, many military families are inquiring about their exemption rights for an experimental drug. Here’s what the regulations state.

With the Armed Forces projecting a SARS-CoV2 vaccine mandate by Sept. 1, many military families are inquiring about their exemption rights for an experimental drug.

As of July 1, the military reported COVID vaccination rates of between 58% to 77% across all branches. That means potentially 25% of U.S. military personnel may seek exemptions. What are their rights?

Army Regulation AR40-562 provides the long-standing exemption rights for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard, including active and reserve components.

This guidance pre-dates the SARS-CoV2 vaccine in its last updated version in 2013. Below we outline the guidance, as it applies to COVID vaccines.

Immunity testing and contraindication screening required​

First and foremost, it is the responsibility of the medical authorities and command leaders to provide screenings prior to immunization.

Army Regulation AR40-562 states:

“Ensure patients are evaluated for pre-existing immunity, screened for administrative and medical exemptions, and/or evaluated for the need for medical exemptions to immunizations or chemoprophylaxis medications. Exemptions are granted per paragraph 2-6; document any exemptions.”

Positive PCR tests, antibody tests and T-cell tests should be documented in the medical record, according to the regulation:

“Before immunizing, conduct serologic testing where available. At a minimum, conduct serologic testing for antibodies for measles, rubella, hepatitis A, hepatitis B and varicella. Document medical exemptions for immunity (MI) in Service ITS. Documented medical exemptions for immunity will be accepted as evidence of immunity in lieu of vaccination.”

Because of the serious risks of vaccine reactions, medical authorities and command leaders must have first responders at the vaccination site with specified medical supplies equipment, as stated:

“Ensure emergency medical response is available and that personnel who administer immunizations receive training on cardiopulmonary resuscitation, administration of epinephrine and emergency response to immunization-adverse events.”

The military regulation also requires reporting of adverse reactions listed on the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.

The military acknowledges some people have hypersensitivity or allergy to vaccines:

“Before administration of any medication, including vaccines, determine if the individual has previously shown any unusual degree of adverse reaction or allergy to it or any specific component of the vaccine or its packaging (for example eggs, gelatin, preservatives, latex.) Review the manufacturers package inserts and reference materials for product specific information.”

This requirement cannot be met for COVID vaccines because the vaccine package inserts are blank. This provides a reasonable basis for anyone concerned about an allergic reaction or anaphylaxis to abstain from the vaccine. Polyethylene glycol and polysorbate allergies are a common concern with the SARS-CoV2 vaccines.

Pilots and flight crews with risk of vision impairments and blood clots at altitude should be given particular consideration with the SARS-CoV2 vaccine.

Military acknowledges pregnancy is contraindication for vaccines​

Under theArmy Regulation AR40-562’s concerns for “immunizing women of childbearing potential,” the military acknowledges pregnancy is a contraindication for vaccines:

“Discreetly ask her if she is, or might be pregnant. Document responses in health record. If the answer is “yes,” and the ACIP does not recommend the vaccine for use in pregnancy, then defer her from immunization or refer to an obstetric healthcare provider to determine whether the benefits of immunization outweigh risks in pregnancy.”

This is a very important section of the regulation concerning pregnant women. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has taken the position that pregnant women “can” get the SARS-CoV2 vaccine because limited self-reporting data from new COVID vaccine safety monitoring systems did not identify safety concerns.

However as of July 22, the CDC’s Advisory Committee (ACIP) on Immunization Practices has not recommended the SARS-CoV2 vaccine for pregnant women, and therefore pregnant and breastfeeding women in the military have a legal right to exempt and cannot be required to receive the vaccine.

Prior to recommendation, the ACIP is required to review published clinical trials for pregnant and breastfeeding women and the developmental outcomes of their fetuses exposed in the womb. These trials have not been completed. Developmental and reproductive toxicity has not been studied, and risks to fertility are unknown.

Two types of exemptions allowed for COVID vaccines​

There are two main types of exemptions in the military: medical and administrative.

The following are Military Medical Codes for exemption that apply to SARS-CoV2 vaccines:
  • MD: Medical, Declined. Pertains to optional vaccines, including any vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).
  • MI: Medical, Immune. Provide evidence of immunity by serologic test or documented previous infection, or natural infection presumed.
  • MP: Medical, Permanent. Pertains to any contraindication determined by a physician.
  • MR: Medical, Reactive. Pertains to any previous severe reaction to a vaccine, including anaphylaxis, that required medical consultation.
  • MT: Medical, Temporary. Pertains to pregnancy, hospitalization, immune suppression, pending medical evaluation board, or any temporary contraindication to immunization.
The following are Military Administrative Codes for exemption that apply to SARS-CoV2 vaccines:
  • AR: Administrative, Refusal. Pertains to people who obtained a religious accommodation.
  • AS: Administrative, Separation. Pertains to people pending discharge, separation (within 60 days) and retirement (within 180 days.)
  • AT: Administrative, Temporary. Pertains to people pending legal action.
  • NR: Not Required. Pertains to service members transitioning to civilian employees or contractors.

Commanders have flexibility​

Army Regulation AR40-562 gives flexibility to commanders to conduct a “disease threat assessment.”

This could result in a commander assessing that herd immunity has been established and COVID restrictions should be lifted to maximize unit training and mission capabilities.

This commander discretion could also result in administrative exemptions with individual assessments of mission critical personnel: “The commander has not directed immunization because of overriding mission requirements.”

In some geographic regions and units, there might only be one person with a critical military occupational specialty.

COVID vaccine mandates can be legally challenged​

Army Regulation AR40-562 lists criteria for EUA drugs. This criteria can be legally challenged.

The regulation states:

“(1) The vaccine or drug may be effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing the disease or condition. (2) The known and potential benefits of the vaccine or drug outweigh the known and potential risks. (3) There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative medical countermeasure.”

All of these requirements for the use of the EUA COVID vaccines demand evidence, and Judge Advocate General (JAG) offices at every military installation can assist with legal matters, such as pending separation or Uniform Code of Military Justice punishment for non-compliance with regulations.

The immunization regulation also has guidance for civilian personnel, contractors, military families and children and staff attending U.S. Department of Defense schools and daycares — they all have religious exemption and medical contraindication rights.

Service members are under the pending weight of a COVID vaccine mandate by presidential waiver or FDA approval. If mandates are enforced, this could adversely affect the Armed Forces retention, just as it did with the military’s anthrax vaccine program.
 

budoslavic

Owl
Orthodox
Gold Member
Via Torba: In addition to this Gab group here is another pro-freedom job board being built by Christians. Check them out!

Red Balloon (link)

Where we connect employers who value freedom with employees who value it too. We envision a world beyond cancel culture, where employees are free to just...work...without fear that they will find themselves on the wrong side of their employer’s politics.

That’s it. No agendas, politics, or drama. Just work. Interested? Let’s create that world together.


Edit.

 

DanielH

Pelican
Orthodox
Someone I know will be losing their job because their work is mandating the vaccine. The company clearly had a lawyer write the document and it almost seems like they had the exemption documents that have been going around in mind when creating it. You need to get a religious leader to sign off on it. This person wasn't able to get their religious leader to sign off on it even though their religion has a lot of statements against the inoculation, and even if they did, this is not a contract you would want to sign as you promise to agree to all further measures without defining what those measures are. Could mean you waive health insurance in the future, show up to work in a HAZMAT suit, or forfeit overtime, who knows, and then if you don't follow that absurd measure you get fired without unemployment eligibility.

Parts of it look weird because I edited all personal information out on Adobe.

If any of you have any legal advice for this person, anything legally overreaching in this document, loopholes, or other guidance, that would be appreciated.
 

Attachments

  • Rothman Mandate.pdf
    370.7 KB · Views: 21

budoslavic

Owl
Orthodox
Gold Member

Solari Report Forms for COVID-19 Injections Available as Downloadable PDFs

(Catherine Austin Fitts)
*****
The following forms are provided to help families, employees, students, and parents successfully implement complete due diligence and informed consent with respect to COVID-19 injections.
*****

For Family Members

Family Financial Disclosure Form for COVID-19 Injections


The goal of this Family Financial Disclosure Form is to ensure that an adverse event or death of one family member does not translate into long-lived or permanent financial destruction for the entire family.

*****

For Employees

Employer Disclosure Form for COVID-19 Injections


This is a form every employee who is faced with this situation needs to submit to the authorized officer of their company. It is requires them to respond to your questions (already on the form for you), provides you with requirements by the FDA, makes them review the ways they are breaking the law or ethical principles related to human experimentation and choice, and holds them 100% financially responsible, requiring a signature.

*****

For Students

School Disclosure Form for COVID-19 Injections


This is a form every student who is faced with this situation needs to submit to the authorized officer of their school. It is requires them to respond to your questions (already on the form for you), provides you with requirements by the FDA, makes them review all of the ways they are breaking the law or ethical priniciples related to human experimentation and choice, and holds them 100% financially responsible, requiring a signature.

*****

For Parents

Notice and Declaration of Parental Authority Requirement of Disclosure and Safety of Medical Treatment/s


This is a form that parents can use to notify relevant parties that they do not give consent to their child being administered a COVID-19 injection without the parent’s express written informed consent. It states that no such consent will be considered without a detailed response to a series of questions.


*****

Edit. From Children's Health Defense -

Notice for Employers, Universities, and Other Institutions Mandating:​

COVID-19 Tests
COVID-19 Masks
COVID-19 Vaccines
 
Last edited:

budoslavic

Owl
Orthodox
Gold Member
Someone I know will be losing their job because their work is mandating the vaccine. The company clearly had a lawyer write the document and it almost seems like they had the exemption documents that have been going around in mind when creating it. You need to get a religious leader to sign off on it. This person wasn't able to get their religious leader to sign off on it even though their religion has a lot of statements against the inoculation, and even if they did, this is not a contract you would want to sign as you promise to agree to all further measures without defining what those measures are. Could mean you waive health insurance in the future, show up to work in a HAZMAT suit, or forfeit overtime, who knows, and then if you don't follow that absurd measure you get fired without unemployment eligibility.

Parts of it look weird because I edited all personal information out on Adobe.

If any of you have any legal advice for this person, anything legally overreaching in this document, loopholes, or other guidance, that would be appreciated.
Edit. One thing I noticed about "religious exemptions" lately is this: employers, state government, local government, etc. are blatantly not going to follow the "religious exemptions" law.

If I was an employee of that company, I wouldn't sign it because of the top part of page 2, which I wouldn't comply - i.e., "contact tracing" - that is crossing the line.

Regarding legal advice - I'm not a lawyer nor have legal expertise - I would basically flip the script back onto them by having them read & sign some paperwork too. For example, Part 2 (page 7-11) of the below document -


My hunch is an employer will realize that the liability & vaccine risks will be on them. And they probably won't sign the above mentioned document example.

Also, below is an excellent post on how Catherine Austin Fitts would deal with the vaccine mandates. It's something to think about.

Catherine Austin Fitts' approach for dealing with vaccine mandates​

August 31, 2021

“If I taught a college course, I’d take students through a year of tracking a descending trail of government documents, moving down into finer and finer detail as we go; and at the bottom of the trail, which is Hell, we would either find a vacuum, nothing at all, no meaning, a blank; or the clear evidence of intent to do great harm, and to evade discovery. That’s where the details take you, when you break them down far enough.” (Richard Bell)

My longtime friend and colleague, Catherine Austin Fitts, who founded and heads up a marvelous and essential organization, Solari (solari.com), has suggested an approach to dealing with vaccine mandates.

This is an individual strategy, and it’s much more. It could open a wide legal and financial doorway for every person who wants to exercise free choice when it comes to COVID vaccination.

Quoting from our email exchange, this is what Catherine wrote:

“My approach would be to demand from the [company or agency mandating the vaccine] to specify who is legally liable, the employer or the vaccine maker or both, and how that relates to my health insurance, my disability insurance and my life insurance as well as workman’s comp. I would always work the money angle.”

“I would file a case to demand FDA give clear guidance for employers for the informed consent required to explain who has liability for adverse events and related immunosuppression and toxicity and death, in terms of [vaccine] manufacturer, health care person administering the injection, employer, health care insurance, workman’s compensation, disability insurance, job protection and benefits, life insurance.”


I see Catherine’s approach as a method of getting many players to lay their cards on the table:

“Before I decide whether to take the vaccine, I need to know how liability for potential injury works. Who would be legally liable? What about insurance coverage and payouts? I need all this spelled out…”

The government, corporate employers, and insurance companies spend a great deal of time putting together policies regarding these two basic issues—legal and financial liability. They have teams of lawyers who design their policies.

Half of modern society runs on preparing for potential liability claims from the other half.

The thing is, despite their standard liability policies, corporate and government employers aren’t ready for a blizzard of well-formed and pointed queries that put them on the spot, regarding their VACCINATION RESPONSIBILITY. These queries shake them up. It’s a bit like investigators getting a very shady hedge fund owner to open up his books to scrutiny.

So…a corporate supervisor sits down with an employee who’s just been told he must get the COVID vaccine. The employee says, “I’m not saying no. I just want to know the conditions.”

“What conditions?”

“Nothing unusual. Who is responsible, in case I happen to suffer an injury.”

“An injury from what?”

“The vaccine.”

“Oh.”

“I want to know who has legal and financial responsibility in that case. This corporation, government entities, my health and life insurance, workman’s comp, disability insurance, the person administering the injection…”

“That’s a lot of people.”

“Just covering my bases. My brother-in-law is an attorney. He’s requesting some of this information from the FDA.”

“An attorney? He’s going all the way to the FDA?”

“This is just routine. When something is mandated, a responsible person wants to understand the consequences of following the mandate.”

“You’re the first employee who’s raised all these issues.”

“I’m sure the company lawyers can help out here. Everybody has liability policies these days.”

“Uh…let me get back to you on this.”

“Sure. Of course.”

This is round one. The opening gambit.

The second conversation might start like this:

“Well, the word from our attorneys is, the federal government has issued blanket immunity from liability, in case of COVID vaccine injury.”

“Yes, I know. My attorney is querying that with the FDA.”

“He is?”

“For example, what about medical personnel who don’t follow correct procedures? The vial of vaccine wasn’t stored at a low enough temperature? But with you and the company, I’m interested in knowing what responsibility you would take. I’m on a company health insurance plan. What is the payout, and under what conditions, if I’m injured? I’ll need that information in writing…I’ve been reading my insurance policy. You see here, on page 14, where there’s a mention of a doctor’s confirming report? Would this be my doctor, the company’s, the insurance carrier’s? I asked my physician about this, and he wasn’t sure…”

Bit by bit, piece by piece, the employee gathers information. If he’s going to mount a challenge to the mandated vaccination, he wants to know where he stands, in detail. And he wants to let his employer know, in every way possible, that he’s serious and competent. And he wants to get his employer to go on the record with as many assurances and confirmations as possible, relating to the employer’s financial and legal responsibilities.

When you think it through, it turns out that what the employee is asking for is quite reasonable.

I’m picturing this approach where parents are up against fascist school boards as well.

In addition to raising hell about COVID restrictions at school board meetings, several parents could be making dozens of recorded requests for information:

“What happens if my doctor certifies that my child has incurred an infection from wearing a mask all day in class? Are you prepared to take financial and legal responsibility in that situation? I want to see your policy on this in writing…”

“I want assurances that the other children are wearing masks that actually block the virus. I can provide documentation confirming that many types of masks are incompetent in this regard—including a statement from Dr. Fauci…”

At solari.com, Catherine and her team have put together highly useful, penetrating, and original documents that people can use, in a variety of situations where vaccinations are mandated.

The ceaseless propaganda about the need for vaccination produces a trance-effect in the public. Many actions are necessary, in order to break the spell.

Active intelligent people working their way into the Policy Beast of the Establishment create dissonant chords.

As a matter of course, officials and corporate employers sit smugly on their little thrones, believing they have the situation well in hand.

But when they’re put to the test, they often come up short.

The devil is in the details. When free and independent people drill down deeper and deeper, demanding those details, throne rooms shudder.

Question: “If I follow this approach, is there any guarantee I can avoid receiving the vaccine?”

Answer: There are no guarantees, except rock-bottom refusal to take the shot, no matter what. With the above approach, you may discover the mandating entity backs off, makes unexpected exceptions to the rule, inadvertently confesses to committing violations. All sorts of things can happen on a relentless fact-finding mission.
 
Last edited:

aynrus

Pelican
Someone I know will be losing their job because their work is mandating the vaccine. The company clearly had a lawyer write the document and it almost seems like they had the exemption documents that have been going around in mind when creating it. You need to get a religious leader to sign off on it. This person wasn't able to get their religious leader to sign off on it even though their religion has a lot of statements against the inoculation, and even if they did, this is not a contract you would want to sign as you promise to agree to all further measures without defining what those measures are. Could mean you waive health insurance in the future, show up to work in a HAZMAT suit, or forfeit overtime, who knows, and then if you don't follow that absurd measure you get fired without unemployment eligibility.

Parts of it look weird because I edited all personal information out on Adobe.

If any of you have any legal advice for this person, anything legally overreaching in this document, loopholes, or other guidance, that would be appreciated.


There're probably a few more who can be found online. And he's Black, so rejecting his exemption may mean racism, to top it off.
The certification request and the question on the form asking to describe what's in religious doctrine or practice opposes the vaxx might be funky from legal standpoint, invasive and possibly discriminatory stuff.

EEOC guidance itself clearly says that the employer must ordinarily assume sincerity of the employee and any basis for disbelieving the employee (thus requesting supporting documentation) must be objective, not subjective. Clearly there's no objective basis since the requirement of proof and to detail religious belief is applied in a blanket fashion, to all, on that form.

3. Employer Inquiries into Religious Nature or Sincerity of Belief​

Because the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, observances, and practices with which the employer may be unfamiliar, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief. If, however, an employee requests religious accommodation, and an employer has an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, observance, or practice, the employer would be justified in seeking additional supporting information. See infra § 12‑IV‑A‑2.




3. Can we request other supporting documents?​

The employer should normally presume the employee's request for religious accommodation is sincerely held. However, if there is an objective basis for questioning the employee's sincerity, employers can request documents to be used in the review process to further their assessment of the employee's sincerely held religious belief. Types of documents that an employer can request include:

  • Statements and explanations from the employee that discuss the nature and tenets of his or her asserted beliefs and information about when, where, and how they follow the practice or belief
  • Written religious materials describing the religious belief or practice
  • Written statements or other documents from third parties, such as religious leaders, practitioners, or others with whom the employee has discussed his or her beliefs, or who have observed the employee's past adherence
 

DanielH

Pelican
Orthodox


There're probably a few more who can be found online. And he's Black, so rejecting his exemption may mean racism, to top it off.
The certification request and the question on the form asking to describe what's in religious doctrine or practice opposes the vaxx might be funky from legal standpoint, invasive and possibly discriminatory stuff.

EEOC guidance itself clearly says that the employer must ordinarily assume sincerity of the employee and any basis for disbelieving the employee (thus requesting supporting documentation) must be objective, not subjective. Clearly there's no objective basis since the requirement of proof and to detail religious belief is applied in a blanket fashion, to all, on that form.

3. Employer Inquiries into Religious Nature or Sincerity of Belief​

Because the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, observances, and practices with which the employer may be unfamiliar, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief. If, however, an employee requests religious accommodation, and an employer has an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, observance, or practice, the employer would be justified in seeking additional supporting information. See infra § 12‑IV‑A‑2.




3. Can we request other supporting documents?​

The employer should normally presume the employee's request for religious accommodation is sincerely held. However, if there is an objective basis for questioning the employee's sincerity, employers can request documents to be used in the review process to further their assessment of the employee's sincerely held religious belief. Types of documents that an employer can request include:

  • Statements and explanations from the employee that discuss the nature and tenets of his or her asserted beliefs and information about when, where, and how they follow the practice or belief
  • Written religious materials describing the religious belief or practice
  • Written statements or other documents from third parties, such as religious leaders, practitioners, or others with whom the employee has discussed his or her beliefs, or who have observed the employee's past adherence
Thank you, shared this with that person
 

aynrus

Pelican
Also, notice that EEOC guidance in the same document I posted above says that "religious leader" statement may be used only "if applicable" (since there might be no religious leader).

So 1st, employer must have "objective" reason to question employee's sincerity and/or beliefs to go down that road of asking for proof, 2nd - "religious leader" must be applicable to particular religious belief situation - might be no religious leader/one might be their own leader, 3rd - EEOC investigator might ask for variety of documents if the Employer reject employees exemption and the Employee files a complaint with EEOC - but there's wide range of supporting information that's allowed (religious leader statement not being mandatory) including simply employee's personal statement to EEOC.

There're a lot of people who do not belong to any church and practice directly based on the text of the Bible, for example. They have no religious leader. EEOC rules do not require one to belong to a registered formal church (such as church for tax purposes). The EEOC religious exemption rules apply based on sincerely held religious belief, not formal church organization membership.
 

DanielH

Pelican
Orthodox
Posted elsewhere but this is a better place for it. In 2001, the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America had this with regards to fetal stem cell research, emphasis mine:

From the perspective of Orthodox Christianity, human life begins at conception (meaning fertilization with creation of the single-cell zygote). This conviction is grounded in the Biblical witness (e.g., Ps 139:13-16; Isaiah 49:1ff; Luke 1:41,44), as well as in the scientifically established fact that from conception there exists genetic uniqueness and cellular differentiation that, if the conceptus is allowed to develop normally, will produce a live human being.[1] Human life is sacred from its very beginning, since from conception it is ensouled existence. As such, it is "personal" existence, created in the image of God and endowed with a sanctity that destines it for eternal life.
President Bush's proposal to use only the existing sixty lines of stem cells [2] because the embryos had already been destroyed (i.e., killed) falters on the precept enunciated by the apostle Paul in Romans 3:8, "We may not do evil so that good may come." The very act of destroying those embryos is evil, and we may not profit from evil even to achieve a good and noble end.

Although the President's Solomonic decision appears to serve pro-life interests, in fact it unwittingly opens the floodgates to ever more utilitarian manipulation of human life.
In conclusion, we firmly reject any and all manipulation of human embryos for research purposes as inherently immoral and a fundamental violation of human life.

This covers the vaccines available in the US as they are all the product of abortion. I recommend you all add this to your religious exemption documents, as this is the best case I've seen for those in the OCA.
 
Top