Hospital staff must swear off Tylenol, Tums to get religious vaccine exemption

Then that makes two of us.

This is almost entirely confused reasoning.

First of all, it is certainly the case that whether you have a sincere religious belief matters to the state. Your claim is the same as saying that it doesn’t matter whether a man who testifies in court is being consistent. We’re not talking the ins and outs of deep theological consistency. The question is whether you are telling the truth when you say you have a religious conviction. Obvious facts that demonstrate you are lying matter to the government for good reason.

Secondly, the civil magistrate is not evaluating the truth of your belief, but whether you truly believe it.

Thirdly, freedom of conscience is the same thing as freedom of religion in the civil sphere. Your argument is that we should protect freedom of conscience by doing away with it.

Finally, the government is absolutely capable of judging sincerely held religious beliefs to be beyond the pale and refusing to protect them and rather banning them. Doing such does not require abandoning freedom of conscience. It simply places limits on that freedom, which is entirely appropriate.

Bannerman’s appendix D in “Church of Christ” is all about freedom of conscience, and I think you would be helped tremendously by reading it. I’ll try to circle back later today and post a quote or two when I’m at my computer.

3 Likes

So you are simply a libertarian, not a Christian, in your reasoning. According to you, the government has no right to make rules about anything related to food or drugs, let alone controlling any substances.

Your eisegesis and misapplication of that passage is revealed in the switch from the ecclesiastical authority in the text to a completely different context of civil authority. Even if you are an extreme theonomist, all the Bible instruction is how to deal with the nonchristian government of that time, which just so happens to be the same as our context.

The fact that nobody can create a command of God binding your conscience to “not touch or taste” certain things does not mean that the government cannot make a law to the same effect. And if they do, assuming they are not attempting to bind consciences but simply bodies, you are interacting with a very different question from a churchman binding your conscience by saying God requires it.

2 Likes

It does not matter for satanism since they designed their religion around using fake religious freedom arguments, but regardless that is not really the point. The point is that the state cannot know an individuals heart and with rare exceptions the state can’t say you don’t have a sincere belief. Even if you said that you were adopting a belief with the express purpose of getting a religious exemption, you could simply say that once you adopted it you had a change of heart and it became your sincere belief. As dumb as it sounds it just as principled.

Requiring consistency (which is what the Tylenol and Tums argument does) functionally turns into judging religions because I can just as easily argue that Roman Catholics or Baptists are not consistent and force them to choose between two beliefs they claim to hold.

Placing limits on religious freedom is obviously required since otherwise people could do things like claim that stealing or murder is part of their religion. But again, this requires not being “principled” but judging the content of religion. In that case, it is a war between Christ and Antichrist which is the fundamental conflict of religious freedom we face now. All the state has to do is say that Christian beliefs are beyond the pale. Now we have the worst of both worlds regarding religious freedom.

This is such a trainwreck.

No I am not a libertarian. The government is allowed to make laws in accordance with righteousness, not whatever they feel like. No I am not a theonomist much less an extreme theonomist.

It should be obvious that do not touch, do not taste, etc. is drawing from a principle. In the original context talking about regulations of what is now called kosher but there being a wider principle of the fact that there is no requirement of conscience regarding the consumption of food and handling, which broadly speaking pertains to binding the conscience regarding these types of things. Imagine thinking for example that a Christian is bound to not eat pork if they were ruled by a Muslim.

1 Like

We aren’t talking about two beliefs. We’re talking about one belief.

That’s precisely what I said. And that’s why, for example, it doesn’t require giving up religious freedom to outlaw Satanism.

But the government is certainly able to judge your claims based on your actions. The man who is commanded to eat meat and then claims to be against harming any animal, but goes sport hunting has no leg to stand on, and the fact that you appear unable to figure out why doesn’t mean that any judge, jury or court wont be able to see it through common grace.

Brother, the government is not binding consciences when it makes a rule. There is no conscience principle to the law “you must drive on the right side of the street.” Nevertheless, you must obey it, and in fact, it’s partly because it is not attempting to bind conscience that you owe obedience in that case.

Please read the Church of Christ appendix D. It will be a major help to you.

In the meantime, are you an officer in Christ’s church?

4 Likes

You’re not following. Every inconsistent belief that someone holds involves them choosing between two incompatible beliefs on a case by case basis. In the example, the Roman Catholic believes that the Bible is God’s word but also functionally believes that the RCC gave the Bible its authority. This creates a situation where they can and will cite scripture to defend themselves but then they will elevate the Church over scripture when they need to. That is what it means to be inconsistent. Religious freedom as understood by the government contains within it the freedom to be inconsistent because otherwise the state is left to judge the truth claims of the different religions.

Appeals to common sense and common grace with judges doesn’t really solve anything because ultimately that just confirms the fact that we are actually talking about the arbitrary judgments of authority figures. The judge’s “common sense” is going to show him that backwards Christian beliefs that “most Christians don’t even agree with” are not “real” Christianity and don’t need protection.

The binding of the conscience occurs in two steps. Step 1 is when they make the rule. Step 2 is when the principle of submission to authority makes following that rule necessary for obedience to God.

The method to get from the rule making to the binding of the conscience exists but it is more complicated to that. It’s really something more along the lines of: (1) the rule is made (2) the inferior observes the spirit of the law and its intended effect (3) the inferior considers whether this is a righteous law that was in the realm of authority for the superior to make (4) the inferior submits for conscience sake to the end of the intended effect meant by the law being made by reasonably following the letter of the law.

So you are required by conscience to drive on the right side of the road because it is the method that the superior has chosen to make the road safe for driving, this method is in accord with the righteous agenda and so forth. However, it also allows for edge cases like bypassing an unforeseen circumstance where driving on the left is necessary by requiring the principle of considering well the principle of safety and predictability.

But Satanists obviously don’t actually believe what they claim to believe, and are getting by with things on the basic of religious exemption. From the civil authority’s point of view, why should Christians be held to a higher standard of sincerity? Isn’t this an obvious double standard?

I truly believe that the connection between abortion and tylenol is not qualitatively the same as the connection between abortion and vaccination. This is a sincerely held belief.

So… what have you really solved? I’m missing it.

1 Like

I think that’s a pretty significant issue in this discussion. And the answer is because we answer not only to the civil magistrate but also to God. I understand you’re addressing the civil magistrate’s point of view, but this whole discussion has devolved as it has because of questions of whether sincerity even matters or is measurable in the first place.

And a magistrate’s inconsistent or even unethical ruling as to a Satanist doesn’t negate his responsibility to rule rightly when he deals with us. In other words, you’re right. It’s not fair. Others get away with murder. That’s not the standard. It’s certainly not our standard.

5 Likes

This is something that I often paraphrase as the Christian’s moral obligation to lose.

Basically, the fact that Christians are generally taught that all the negative aspects of freedom, diversity, pluralism, tolerance, etc. apply to them but none of the reciprocity.

If Christians sincerely try to win, they are accused of putting their faith in something besides Christ, putting their hope in this world only, trying to trust in something besides God’s providence, finding hope in material things, and so on. If Christians are losing something we are consoled that our hope is not in this world, it was all God’s plan, and that our hope is not in material things.

The world loves abusing Christians, and Christians love being abused. This way everyone is happy.

Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

2 Likes

I distinguish between persecution for righteousness sake and persecution for the sake of not even fighting or trying. It would be easy to ignore the wisdom of Proverbs and then interpret your hardships as a Christian trial or persecution. I think this is perhaps one of the chief sins of conservative churches.

Yes, amen.

My comment wasn’t to argue, “we should be held to the same standard as Satanists.” As you note, I was asking from the perspective of the civil magistrate. I understand God will deal with his people in his providence as he sees fit for our good, and that includes being subjected to injustices. Amen and amen.

My concern/critique is for those here who seem to want to defend or applaud that somehow the civil authorities are getting it right on this tylenol and tums thing. They aren’t. They’re simply showing more of their double standard against Christians. Let’s not pretend that what they’re doing is righteous.

If they are going to give a pass to Satanists in their overtly insincere beliefs in the name of religious freedom, while taking extreme care and scruple, and assigning their own standards against Christians in their sincerely held beliefs, that isn’t called good governance. That’s called wickedness.

3 Likes

How is it any more of a double standard for one group than the other? A quick search came up with a 2018 study on Tylenol. From the Ethics Statement we learn that

Human fetal testes were obtained after elective termination of pregnancy, according to the Declaration of Helsinki–Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.

This is a new abortion and human baby parts we’re talking about. If you make the case for religious exemption from vaccines, how could the same religious objection not apply to Tylenol and Ibuprofen?

Do you have any evidence that suggests Matt Troup, president and CEO of Conway Regional Health System, has an animus against Christians?

1 Like

That very well may be. I have no issue calling out that wickedness. But using abortion as a human shield behind which we hide political ideology (whether or not that ideology is correct) is also wicked. I’m not responsible for the civil magistrate in the same way I am for those in my congregation and others who bear Christ’s name. You may not be doing this, but others certainly are. We must understand what precisely a conscientious objection actually is, and where it’s just a cloak for rebellion. And saying, ‘my conscience disapproves’ simply doesn’t cut it. Regardless of what the civil magistrate makes of us, Jesus Christ will judge us for how we invoke his name.

Is that what you see here? Masochistic Christianity? Or is it maybe something a little deeper than that? Is it maybe that we understand it’s no sin to be defrauded and it is most certainly sin to defraud others (and manufacturing a conscientious objection that no one held a year ago is defrauding others). You call it ‘the Christian’s moral obligation to lose.’ I say that it’s better to lose a fight we fought righteously than to win a fight in which we dishonoured our Saviour’s name. Was Paul losing when he suffered beatings even though they were unjust? Was Jeremiah losing when he was rejected again and again despite still following the people with God’s word?

You’re right: we lose too much. But why is that? What’s wrong with us that we lose so much? If our cause is so morally just why is God against us? This fight isn’t political; it’s theological. What’s wrong with our theology and application that despite our rhetoric and guns and bravado we can’t accomplish a thing?

Complaining that ‘Christians love being abused’ is exactly the same moral compromise every other generation has made to attempt to keep power. If we wanted to win we’d preach repentance, but that just costs too much. So we deflect and make it about our tactics…

8 Likes

There isn’t a Tylenol mandate. Also Tylenol is a brand name.

Furthermore, people are not required to be comprehensively consistent in everything they abstain from. For example, I make an intentional point to go through significant effort to avoid Amazon because they are a profoundly evil company. I would oppose any mandate that required me to purchase from Amazon. Nevertheless, I will still occasionally choose to buy from Amazon because of the options available to me. We are not morally required to boycott everything evil, but we are required to hate it. So I do things like pray for the destruction or conquest of Amazon, encourage people to not buy from them, try to redirect my money to not support them, but occasionally I will use them just because it is the best fit for what I need.

If your goal is to be perfectly consistent in your plans for consumption, there really is no way to do that. But it is also weak/pathetic to make no effort to avoid paying money to the people who hate you, hate Christ, and want to destroy your culture. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

No, he simply hates your freedom to choose and thinks he is better than you and is tyrannically flexing his authority. This is like the “what about shellfish” argument from Fedora Atheists.

It’s not a human shield. We are not required to be 100% internally consistent to render moral principle. Anything that uses abortion is a blank check for rejection on moral grounds.

Rebellion is when a tyrant usurps the liberty that God gave the people. Not when a Christian uses the tyrant’s own law against him.

No it’s not. We deal with contentious questions when they become aware to us. Basically no one knows about the use of abortion in all of the pharma world. You can object on the basis of conscience for any reason provided it is a righteous cause. This is like when the Kentucky official who refused to sign Sodomite Wedding licenses was raked over the coals for being divorced multiple times. The fact that she was divorced and likely sinned in previous cases has no bearing on whether she morally objects for a righteous cause later. If I have committed adultery 10 times and then later decide I don’t want to an 11th time, that’s not hypocrisy or lying. I have the right to make a righteous decision at a later date.

Because we don’t even try, and we let snakes into our midst like Russell Moore and Tim Keller whose job it is to convince us to lose every fight for the sake of our witness or the gospel or something.

I don’t ever see Christians seriously trying to take power. To our shame the last generation that seriously made a go of it was Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell etc. It should be a judgment on us that those men had the courage to make that fight but not the reformed world.

This is preached all the time. It’s trying to win that is objectionable.

As I’ve written elsewhere, there’s a difference between a drug’s development being predicated upon aborted fetal tissue, versus a drug being incidentally tested in an unethical way at some point in time.

I am sure many unethical things have been done with Tylenol since it went to market, but it wasn’t invented in 2018.

4 Likes

Then it’s clear your objection is to mandates. Since you also don’t believe consistency is required, then you are free to pick and chose what commands apply to you.

6 Likes

Yes. I am opposed to the framing of injustice by statute.