Religious: Acceptance, Exemptions, Exception?
A response with thoughts on ‘Religious Exemptions’ of Vaccination
I’ve had a few discussions now with folks, and have read a bunch on line and off of the chatter of the ‘Religious Exemption’ trend in terms of the Experimental Vaccination against the Corona Virus, as well as those prior vaccines that I have opposed for 18 years that violate the Law of God by use of unclean and abominable serums.
For years I’ve warned people, particularly Christians, of the dead baby serum used to concoct the vaccines of the past taken from imposed abortions, and they though professing Christ ignored it or me, and others deferred to the ‘greater good’.
For years I have warned the self supposed ‘law keeper’ ‘torah observant’ and ‘Christian israel’ communities and disorders of the unclean products in other Vaccines which they take and place in their children’s bodies without discretion, I’d say 8 of 10 do not care or listen, and do not look into it for one reason or another.
In this way it is easily seen how that dead baby serum or other unclean animal serums involve a religious objection of conscience to those who have one on these matters, but what if these things are not sot? What is the opposition to vaccination is ethical, either on grounds of the experimental (un-tested) nature of the COVID Vaccine or on grounds of its threat to liberty? Are these safety and ethical objections Religious? For the Christian it certainly is on fundamental grounds of liberty of Conscience.
So let’s start with the supposition
It seems that the state has presumed control over your bodies by word and in legislation aimed at corporate entities, and or employers who are involved with receiving governmental benefits, or promised to receive a benefit in performing governmental functions; so a a‘ Religious Exemption’ is being used and proposed by employees who are citizens who do not agree. Some are approved and others are denied, but why?
Two questions are to be here asked:
- What course of action is proper to deal with Government?
- What course of action is proper in dealing with an Employer?
All is a matter of Contract law
It has only been those ‘patriot nut jobs’ and ‘lawyers’ actually defending a definable concept of liberty who for the past many years that have been teaching the difference between what is ACCEPTED vs. EXCEPTIONS vs. EXEMPTIONS.
They all sort of sound the same right? They aren’t.
I hope to in this short write up make my readers aware of a difference your child’s dictionary and your legal dictionary yet contain, and that which is contained in the 1828 Webster’s dictionary; however, I will say, your on-line dictionaries are changing and are tacitly establishing an accepted approval of definitions as they except some definitions and exempt others.
Here is the short of it.
You owe the US Government no Exemption or Exception of your Religion… your Right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of your conscience is Accepted by the US Government and most States of the Union as stated in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. If government steps outside of its limits as specified it is the right of the People to resist such as tyranny.
On the other hand, An Employee MAY have the right to obligate you to ‘mandates’ but you owe them no ‘Religious Exemption’, but if your objection be Religious, then it is an Exception to their rule or mandate you are asking for; but a governmental objection has no place being filed with your Employer.
Keep reading if you still want to consider more.
Using the 1828 Noah Webster’s dictionary
Here is what your ‘Religious Exemption’ conveys and caries in your submission of one to the Government and or of one to an Employer:
EXEMP’TION, n. The act of exempting; the state of being exempt.
- Freedom from any service, charge, burden, tax, evil or requisition, to which others are subject; immunity; privilege. Many cities of Europe purchased or obtained exemptions from feudal servitude.
So an Exemption plainly admits to a want for freedom which one cannot have without being exempted. In other words a ‘Religious Exemption’ takes a RIGHT and reduces it to a PRIVILAGE to be granted by another. The presumption of who that power is should be importantly considered: if it is the Government which is bound to ACCEPT (as we will discuss) your Religious Conscience? Or is it your employer that has taken your ‘Religion’ and considers it in their employment environment as Excepted ?
Here is what your ‘Religious Exception’ conveys and caries in your submission of one to the Government and or of one to an Employer:
EXCEP’TION, n. The act of excepting, or excluding from a number designated, or from a description; exclusion.
(example) All the representatives voted for the bill, with the exception of five. All the land is in tillage, with an exception of two acres.
- Exclusion from what is comprehended in a general rule or proposition.
- In law, the denial of what is alleged and considered as valid by the other party, either in point of law or in pleading; or an allegation against the sufficiency of an answer. In law, it is a stop or stay to an action, and it is either dilatory or peremptory.
So, if there is a legitimate ability of a government to force its people by mandate, you might ask for a ‘Religious Exception’ to such a government , to be taken out of the whole governed population, or claim you ARE already accepted by being excepted in a prior ruling to these new ‘mandates’ on account of the governments power and authority.
But what if the government is limited, as it is in the US and has no power to mandate its people in such a way? This is a right prior Accepted.
Whereas the ‘Religious Exemption’ says,’ it is the right of the government to mandate what they will, regardless, but your claim is ‘Religious’ and the government chooses to allow you by their choice.
So either of these 2 claims, that of a Religious Exemption or of a Religious Exception IS NOT APPLICABLE in the US in Dealing with the US Government or State Government, because under the constitution Religion is Accepted.
Here is what your ‘Religious Acceptance’ conveys and caries in your assertion of one to the Government and or of one to an Employer:
ACCEPT’, v.t. [L. accepto, from accipio, ad and capio, to take.]
- To take or receive what is offered, with a consenting mind; to receive with approbation or favor.
- To regard with partiality; to value or esteem.
- To consent or agree to; to receive as terms of a contract; as, to accept a treaty; often followed by of.
Accept of the terms.
- To understand; to have a particular idea of; to receive in a particular sense.
In order to have legal acceptations there must be two parties.
These are Acceptor- n. A person who accepts.
In this case both parties are acceptors of the terms.
In our case with the US Governement, to be Religiously Accepted is to have your Rights of Religion as a Worshiper of Almighty God according to the dictates of your Conscience agreed upon as protected.
And nearly every state in the US has established this Right as guaranteed at the state level as well.
This is the state of your Religious freedom in the US, under the Constitution of the US, it is ACCEPTED and in the Bill of rights agreed upon by Government, with additional support found in the Declaration of Independence.
The Bill of Rights is the Accepted Rights, not the privileges of the People, and it is as a Bill of what is accepted of government foremost, and known by the People being governed.
The Constitution states the limits affirmed by the Government upon themselves, as contract between the People and the government, and it serves as the terms of the Consent of the governed to the government, and every official has sworn to protect this constituted contract.
Those who break this contract are perjurers and punishable as seditious or treasonous as a government official whose taken this oath.
Proposed government mandates upon a people
In the case of proposed government mandates upon a people the parties are named ‘Government’ and ‘the People’.
The US Government has No Power but is limited in its ability to ‘Mandate’ its People. This is why Government is attempting to use Employers to accomplish its end, either with good or bad ‘intent’; because the Government is limited in its abilities to force the People into any such mandate as this vaccination in general but especially when there are Religious objections.
In the case of an employer employee relationship
So, you have an ‘Employer’ and you are an ‘Employee’, as parties to a contract are acceptors of it. The maxim is, ‘contract supersedes law’, this is insomuch as it is a private agreement, in other words you are free to make a contract to obey particular rules or ‘mandates’ which are only binding due to your contract which you have made by the word of your mouth and signature of your hand in testimony.
The same goes for the Government dealing with Employers
Now, if the Government imposes upon an Employer a ‘mandate’ it does so upon the individual, board, or representatives who represents the entities called ‘Employer’, so an Employer at law is looked at like a ‘person’, and still to be treated as a free-person and part of the people, in other words an Employer has a choice, and can contract freely with whom he chooses and how he chooses, unless he limits himself by contract and is therefore legally bound to his agreement.
Now if an Employer receives benefits from the ‘Government’ in exchange for certain work or acts of compliance or obedience the Employer is no longer free in this way. He may or may not have to be submissive to ‘mandates’. Now the Employer is acting a person who is working for a benefit, no different than what the Employer does with its Employees: “You work for me the Employer and do what we want you to do, and we the Employer will pay you the Employee such and so….”
But now it is:
“You work for me the Government Mr. Employer and if you do what we want you to do, then we the Government will pay you as Mr. Employee such and so in benefits ….”.
So in a sense the Employer has by the benefit from the ‘Government’ become a contracted ‘employee’ of the Government, working for a payment in benefits, and in order to keep particular benefits he must do as told and follow certain rules or ‘mandates’. If the Employer refuses to perform in accordance with his contract, it / he will lose the benefit offered by the government and even perhaps be fined for breach of contract.
Just as if you refuse to do your job as an Employee you will lose your job from your Employer, so the Employer is now in the same place with the ‘Government’, but not by simple force of tyranny but by his desire of benefit, a greedy choice.
Maxim: ‘He that begs the benefit must stand to the burden.’
It is the right of an Employer, as a free-person at law, to accept or not accept of the benefits offered under contract by terms of the contract. No Employer is bound to the mandate of the Government simply because they are ‘an Employer’.
So what if you are the Employee a and work for an Employer?
Can your Employer ‘mandate you? So long as that Employer is not the Government directly the question is easily answered, your Employer is able to mandate you, but only by your agreement or acceptance of the terms of his contract. If your contract states you are obligated as an Employee of the Government or a subcontractor of the Government ‘federal’ or ‘state’ or ‘local to abide by’- rules, mandates and orders), you might be obligated to obey in order to keep your job. But if the obligation you’ve agreed to also includes an expressed protection of your Religious Rights, your case of Exception might still be lawfully made on grounds of breach of contract in the nature of Religious intolerance.
Regardless, you are not bound in servitude to an Employer, you can always leave, employment is a revocable contractual relationship- So you have the ability or right to leave and find other employment of your time and skills.
You are not bound to Accept new terms unknown to you at employment and the Employer is not bound to accept your Exception to known terms on grounds of Religious Conscience.
But the question NOW is what about to NEW rules, orders, and mandates recently imposed by the Government upon your Employer, are you bound by their agreement or NOT or are they bound to your prior agreement or NOT?
The other option rather than leaving is…
To press legal issue, if a contract between you and your Employer has been altered or breached, if one exists that is, in acceptance of what you are to perform as a Employee to a particular Employee government or private is stated and know to both parties at the time of employment.
If you have an open contract that states particulars of employment are subject to change, such as a new form of performance or health testing, such as known ones, as drug tests, or competency test, vision tests, hearing tests, then there is a chance in this way you have no legal leg to stand on. It is the Employers right as free-person under law to mandate particulars for you the Employee as a free person at law to keep your employment with them.
The US operates as a free market and it is a play into the hands of Tyranny, with her child Socialism and grandchild Communism, for a free people to support the banning of an Employer’s rights as a free person with the ability to hire whomsoever they choose, and contract with them freely and honestly, this should not be hindered by our distain for mandates, rather identification should be made of who is enacting the mandate and see if it is applicable by prior agreement or not, and therefore must be followed.
In this way, it is better a Christian Employer never agree to Government benefits attached to an acceptance of terms, consider the well known ‘equal opportunity employer’ and the like, this agreement disallows free and private Employers to rejecting employment to whosoever they choose, while before agreement they freely have the right to consider ones race, religion, sexual orientation and the like as considerations in employment. You will find this agreement generally stated on the ‘application’ contract of many Employers, especial those connected to State and Federal government ‘jobs’, as this chance to do such jobs is the benefit of accepting such terms. Christians should be ‘Wise as serpents and harmless as doves‘ in this matter, using such contracts to the Christian advantage.
(The question here is better asked: Should government offer any benefit to Employers or Employees or its common people in exchange for ‘agreements’. This is outside of the scope of this discussion but forth considering.)
So again, Here is the point, you owe the US Government NO Exemption or Exception of your Religion… your Right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of your Conscience has prior been Accepted by the US Government and most States of the Union.
On the other hand, An Employee MAY have the right to obligate you to ‘mandates’ but you owe them no ‘Religious Exemption’ but a Religious Exception to their rule or mandate MAY be in order, but NOT to a Governmental mandate upon the People! Because Government has no right to obligate your conscience of religion to be changed, therefore such ‘mandates’ when pressed in any way by an agenda of Government and private entities should be ignored as law, opposed at law, and replaced with better Government and better Employment.
So the big question,
Are you able to provide me with a ‘Religious Exemption’ paper, or will you sign one I provide?”
“Yes if your employer is expecting you to provide one with a minister’s signature, but not if it is required by the government directly, as you have no obligation to provide such to the US government, nor through your employer, they cannot demand such a thing constitutionally, rather, you must resist such as tyranny.
Your private employer has the free right (in a free market capitalist society) to require mandates to be followed, such as the usual ones we are used to hearing about: alcohol & drug testing, competency tests and skill testing and other requirements of health in employment to assure the job done and the wellbeing of other employees, or even to appease the desire of the employer.
I cannot honestly say that if an Employer chose to believe in the efficacy of an experimental vaccine or a ‘proven one’ that you have the ‘right’ to object and keep your employment, they will fire you or lay you off or release you depending upon the terms of your ‘Employer Employee contract’, and as a Christian you are bound to the word you gave in contract before God. And if you cannot religiously (with faith) before God fulfill that contract according to His Law you must be resolved to resign your employment. Therefore I will sign or provide a Religious Exception, which petitions your employer to release you from a general mandate placed upon his employees if you are committed in true Religion, meaning if they refuse legally you fight it or find other employment.”
I hope this article has been informative and helpful, this is not designed to give you ‘legal advice’ only for you to consider what is at risk here for you children’s and grandchildren’s future as free persons, as well as to stimulate thought as to why things are as they are, and cut out so much illogical and speculative rhetoric so easily found in the world today concerning this subject.
In ending, remember, when you don’t have a choice you’ll know it, you’ll feel its affects, so long as you have to agree it is not force, yet, but if you stay silent you’ve already agreed by desire, but not by force.
In Christ the Only King and Potentate,
( www.renewedcovenantministry.com )
Those who would like a copy of the image of the writ of ‘Religious Exception of Vaccination’, please let me know.