The Ultimate Test of a Religious Exemption

At the outset of this blog post, I want to state clearly and unequivocally that the proof of one's claim for a religious exemption (RE) is the expression of a RE itself. It is not the right of another person or entity to determine whether another's RE is legitimate or not. That would defeat the principle of seeking one, wouldn't it? Whether those in power are elected officials, hired governmental employees, business owners, or a school, college, or university, the unifying factor is those in authority have the opportunity to impose their will upon the participants. 

The point of a RE is that a person is in defiance of a memo, mandate, law, command, or legislation which demands conformity. There is no need for a RE if there is no threat of coercion or actual force upon the opposer. The necessary precondition of a RE is the threat of consequences or governmental force upon the non-compliant.

That being said, I now turn to the nature of RE itself. While it is not within the purview of those in power to determine what is worthy of a RE and what is not, the powers that be have an inherent suspicion that those who seek RE are doing so for less than noble reasons. 

The very fact that those in power raised a mandate to the level of the potential negative consequences reveals they have determined that the required action is so severe that it demands conformity. What is pertinent is it is the nature of those in power to believe nonconformists do not want to be inconvenienced rather than having a sincerely held religious conviction that runs contrary to what is being demanded.

The ultimate test of a sincere religious conviction that would see a RE is not whether the person seeking the RE does everything in their power to fight what is being imposed. From a Christian point of view, I believe worshippers of Christ are obligated to find peaceful means to oppose anything that would demand compromise to their faith.

Peaceful means include, but are not limited to, researching RE clauses already in place, meeting with legislators, supervisors, owners of a business, boards of directors, boards of education, or whoever is in the decision-making process. Peaceful does not necessarily mean nice or polite. We live in a time when a person speaking with conviction and passion is perceived as an extremist unless, of course, the speaker is spouting the status quo. Protests are often peaceful, even if it means manifesting angry words. "Peaceful" in this context means no physical force is being used or threatened.

Peaceful means may require leaving a place of employment, even to your financial detriment. It may require homeschooling your children. It may mean boycotting colleges and universities that require conformity, and so on. The point is if it is indeed a religious conviction, we are willing to suffer the consequences after all other avenues have been exhausted.

But what is the ultimate test of a religious exemption? The ultimate test of a RE is a person's willingness to die for their conviction rather than conform. Those in power do not fear those who seek RE because they do not believe others are willing to die for what they hold most dear. Perhaps they don't believe it because they, themselves, have nothing for which they will give their lives. 

The time is coming when those seeking RE will have to make the ultimate choice, "Am I willing to die for my faith or will I compromise?" This ultimatum may not happen in our lifetime, but it has already occurred in the lifetime of hundreds of millions of people throughout history. The blood of the brave men, women, and children of the past testify to the truth of my words. The guilty party in the past, present, and future are those who are so convinced their way is right that they are willing to spill other people’s blood to enforce their convictions upon others. The innocent party was, are, and will always be those who are eager to die to be true to their God and what He requires. 

My Thoughts on Connecticut HB6423

HB6423 reads like most proposed legislation. It is confusing, ambiguous, wordy, and filled with potentially dangerous governmental intrusion. I started to read the Bill and saw different kinds of texts; plain text, bracketed text, and underlined text. It wasn’t until I reached the very end of the full text that I saw the following:

[Proposed deletions are enclosed in brackets. Proposed additions are indicated by underline, except that when the entire text of a bill or resolution or a section of a bill or resolution is new, it is not underlined.]

That rubric is clear as mud. What good is this at the end of the bill? Why not put it at the beginning so the reader can know and understand the proposed changes from the getgo? A rhetorical question, I know.

Be that as it may, here is a typical section enclosed in brackets that they are proposing to delete:

(starting in line 11) Before being permitted to enter seventh grade, a child shall receive a second immunization against measles. Any such child who…

(starting line 24) [(3) presents a statement from the parents or guardian of such child that such immunization would be contrary to the religious beliefs of such child or the parents or guardian of such child, which statement shall be acknowledged, in accordance with the provisions of sections 1-32, 1-34 and 1-35, by (A) a judge of a court of record or a family support magistrate, (B) a clerk or deputy clerk of a court having a seal, (C) a town clerk, (D) a notary public, (E) a justice of the peace, (F) an attorney admitted to the bar of this state, or (G) notwithstanding any provision of chapter 6, a school nurse;]

(my note… remember the brakets [ ] indicate a proposed deletion)

Lines starting at 54, 157, 189, 221, 308, 319, 463, and 490 all have the same or similar wording as what I quoted above, starting at line 24. Each of these lines articulates the Religious Exemption clauses slated for deletion.

Of further concern and should be highlighted is the text starting on line 150

(a) Each institution of higher education shall require each full-time or matriculating student born after December 31, 1956, to provide proof of adequate immunization against measles, rubella, [and on and after August 1, 2010, to provide proof of adequate immunization against] mumps and varicella as recommended by the national Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices before permitting such student to enroll in such institution.

Finally, near the end of the Bill, we see the proposed changes:

(starting line 507) (h) Any child who is enrolled in sixth grade or below on or before the effective date of this section who presented a statement, prior to the effective date of this section, from the parents or guardians of such child that such immunization is contrary to the religious beliefs of such child or the parents or guardian of such child, and such statement was acknowledged, in accordance with the provisions of sections 1-32, 1-34 513 and 1-35, by (1) a judge of a court of record or a family support magistrate, (2) a clerk or deputy clerk of a court having a seal, (3) a town clerk, (4) a notary public, (5) a justice of the peace, or (6) an attorney admitted to the bar of this state shall comply with the immunizations requirements set forth in the regulations adopted pursuant to subsection Raised Bill No. 6423 LCO No. 3269 17 of 21 (f) of this section by September 1, 2022. (bold emphasis mine)

This Bill is a vast overstepping of Religious Rights in the State of Connecticut! It is also encroaching Parental Rights. 

The Biblical issue of religious exemption and parental rights is a matter of God-given jurisdiction. There are three main jurisdictions of authority in the Bible given by God. The first is government. They have the power of the sword. Romans 13 is the primary passage on the jurisdiction of the government, i.e. the civil magistrate. The government has one God-given task, and that is to punish evil-doers, evil being defined not in humanistic terms, but according to the moral law of God exemplified in the Ten Commandments. The only time the government’s jurisdiction has precedent over ecclesiastical or parental authority (which I’ll comment on later) is if and when parents do “evil” to their children, again “evil” being defined as a transgression of God’s law. (1 John 3:4)

The second jurisdiction is that of the Church. The government has no right to establish religion or rule over the Church. That is the principle our country was founded upon and which the First Amendment recognizes. Elders/Pastors/Bishops rule in the Church, not the civil magistrate or parents. The Church has the “keys to the kingdom.”

The final main jurisdiction that God gave is the Family. The Family is given the responsibility of raising, disciplining, protecting, teaching, and providing for the well fair of their own children. Traditionally this as been articulated as the “rod.”

Once you understand these jurisdictions, you can see that forced vaccinations is NOT a God-given authority or jurisdiction of government. This is why HB6423 is unbiblical.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by others. It is unjust and unconstitutional for the government to legislate the suppression of a person’s religious conviction and parental rights over their children. This is just one more step toward tyranny. I urge residents of Connecticut to rise up and fight this ungodly, unBiblical, and unjust Bill. Show up tomorrow, April 27, at the Connecticut Capital at 9 am and let your voice be heard.