Editor’s note: The Daily Signal’s audience continues to respond to our reporting on the Biden administration’s tracking of federal employees who apply for an exemption from its COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Here’s a sampling from the mailbag at [email protected]—Ken McIntyre
Dear Daily Signal We as Americans should all be disturbed by this trend reported by Sarah Parshall Perry and GianCarlo Canaparo (“18 More Federal Agencies Eye Making Vaccine Religious-Objector Lists“). This happens after parents who speak up at school board meetings are placed on government lists.
The most concerning thing about this government list of federal workers is the fact that it includes religious objection to COVID-19 vaccines. This could have grave First Amendment implications. The next logical step is that the government is going to test people’s sincerity in their religious objections.
This means that their religious beliefs will be scrutinized. So who’s going to decide whether these people are sincere enough in their faith to receive an exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate?
Blue states are seeing religious exemptions from the COVID-19 vaccine and other inoculations under fire. It has happened here in Connecticut.
Some claim this is an attack upon people of religious faith. My question is: Which faith? Over the past two decades, Christianity has been under increasing scrutiny in this country. According to critical race theory, white Christians are especially oppressed.
Jesus said these days would soon come. In his discourse on the Mount of Olives, he said that people would take the lives of those who serve him and think they’re doing God a service. He stated that the entire world would hate Christians who believe in him.
Unlike Schindler’s list, these government lists do not mean life.—Eric Kielhorn, Norwich, Conn.
Dear Daily Signal Conservatives must make official comments about the proposed vaccine objectionors list. Federal Register. As a ham radio operator, I am familiar with the process. We are notified of proposed rulemakings that could affect us and instructed to submit official comments.
I clicked on a link and it brought up the proposed rules with instructions on how to comment. It is a joke, as only insiders are aware of such proposals and can comment.
I am also concerned that official comments, which include name and identifying information, are public information. It is a creepy practice to compile lists of religious information about federal employees in order to grant a religious exemption. It seems like an obvious violation to the First Amendment.
It is not the government’s responsibility to determine our religious beliefs. Individuals can differ even within hierarchical authority structures like the Roman Catholic Church. It is less of a standard set for Protestants regarding issues that the Bible does, such as vaccines.
However, the scriptures are very clear about doubtful things and believers who might hold different views. The scriptural point is that we must be firmly convinced in ourselves and not oppose what we believe to be wrong. No one should try to convince someone to go against their beliefs.—Kathi Robinson
***
The use of religion as a reason to not get vaccinated against COVID-19 can be used only as an excuse and not a valid reason. Anyone who came up with this nonsense must be terminated immediately. There is no reason to allow someone to spread disease to others.
If someone chooses not to be vaccinated for a disease that could kill, they should be kept in quarantine until the pandemic is over. That means that they cannot interact with anyone, and it is at their own expense.—Jeff Savlov
***
This article sounds very much like what is currently happening or has been happening in Communist China. Keep shining “the light of truth” on this administration.—Stan Beachy
***
I work for the Transportation Security Administration as a transportation security officer at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. They took our information regarding our religious exemption and put it on a government site.
They directed us to the database when we applied for a religious exemption. We were required to answer a series of questions as to why we were applying for the exemption.—Dan O’Leary, Illinois
Anticipating a Post-Roe World
Dear Daily Signal Finally, a commentary from five pro-life leaders with remarks that match mine on Roe v. Wade and the abortion issue (“Protecting Unborn Children in a Post-Roe World“).
I am a Lutheran, former pastor, and retired pathologist’s assistant. I have seen the results of both diagnostic and therapeutic abortions. As part of my job, I had to describe the “specimen” and submit sections so the pathologist could render a diagnosis.
I was able to handle a surgical specimen made of blood and tissue. It was preserved in formalin. It was called “products of conception,” not the mangled body of a tiny baby.
The location of the early Christian church at Corinth was at a sinful seaport. Early Christians were often surrounded by the sins and succumbed to them. St. Paul did NOT tell those Christians not to march on Capitol Hill demanding changes. Instead, he wrote in two letters to them to encourage them to live in Christ’s light. Let their testimony of faith help others.
Legislating for change is a good thing, but it can be reversed with the next Congress. It’s great to be heard but it’s also possible to shout your side. Legislation is good, but changing hearts and minds for Christ is better.—Ralph Otte Safety Harbor, Fla.
Dear Daily SignalI support Roe v. Wade’s overturning and the preservation of unborn life. However, in various media outlets’ coverage of the anti- and pro-abortion arguments, I never have heard that prevention measures are important.
It would be quite offensive, I imagine, but it is important to consider, since sexual activity is frequently displayed in movies, music, or on social media.
Pro-choice advocates don’t want people to admit that they have chosen to have sex and it leads to pregnancy. They are not willing to admit that their desire to have fun overrides their senses of responsibility.
This attitude is shared by men and women. Another factor that is almost never mentioned as a responsibility in a pregnancy is the part men play. Preventive measures available don’t destroy the life of an unborn child at any point. The “morning-after pill” isn’t one of those measures, as I understand it will destroy the beginning cells of a fetus.
I am aware that the case against rape requires a difficult decision. Along with saving the unborn, we must do more to ensure safe, respectful and supportive places for women and girls during this time.
If you have the financial resources and compassion to help with the operation and support of such facilities, you can do a lot. We shouldn’t rely on support from the federal government.
It is also necessary to see a return to mutual respect among men and women. Our young people need to be educated and taught how to take responsibility for their adult actions. It should not be assumed or encouraged that young people will engage in sex. Their bodies and differences should not be ignored, but celebrated and protected.
Finally, a return to marriage between a man and a woman must be emphasized, as that is our Creator’s plan and purpose.—Lulenore unger
Fact-Checking Democrats for Clean Elections
Dear Daily Signal Here’s a thought after reading Fred Lucas’ article headlined “Fact-Checking 3 Claims at Democrats’ ‘Voter Suppression’ Hearing“: Pass a law stating that any member of Congress who fabricates or twists facts to make his point would lose his seat and be banned for life from a position in government.
Any media outlet that does the same would permanently lose any operating licenses.—Jeff Savlov
***
I just read Fred Lucas’ article headlined “Fact-Checking 6 Claims From Biden’s Voting Rights Speech,” which included many facts about which I was unaware.
I don’t think Republicans in general are far off from the thinking of most Democrats, barring the most extreme progressives. Concerning voting rights and processes, for example, everyone should be concerned about fair elections in which every eligible voter can vote and expect an accurate result.
It could be easier if everyone involved acknowledged the good parts of the others’ plan. OK, hoping, trusting.—Patrick Jensen
This and That
Dear Daily Signal Vaccination for COVID-19 does not relax the mask-wearing guidance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a “feel good” measure without scientific evidence to support it.
So under the Supreme Court rulings described by Sarah Parshall Perry and Paul Larkin (“Unpacking Supreme Court Justices’ Reasoning in Vaccine Mandate Decisions“), President Biden apparently has the “authority” from Congress to require 24/7 mask wearing by health care workers if he thinks masks protect patients from exposure to the virus.
That said, nothing in the court’s decisions addresses the penalty for noncompliance with Biden’s vaccine mandate for health care workers, or a mask mandate—the withdrawal of federal funding of critical medical care services in the midst of a pandemic!
Does that draconian measure also fit the “authority” granted by Congress discovered by the Supreme Court? Does the president have unfettered authority to withdraw funding approved by Congress to force compliance with any preference conjured up by him or the executive branch?
Health care workers should call his bluff, and see what the Supreme Court does.—Herb Zeller, Boston
***
About Jarrett Stepman’s commentary on crime in New York (“New York District Attorney Calls for End to Prosecuting Serious Crimes“): Nine years ago, as my wife and I were planning our move from New York City to Southern California, the then-developing list of candidates to replace Mayor Michael Bloomberg was chilling and seemed to be a race to the bottom.
I am happy that we left before the Bill de Blasio disaster. Now the city’s new district attorney essentially says, ‘Nope, not going to prosecute crimes like other rational district attorneys.’ So even with a safety-oriented new mayor, Eric Adams, citizens of Manhattan are left to their own devices to safeguard their life and property.
I don’t know what the rules are, but it seems the new DA, Alvin Bragg, should be recalled or impeached or whatever procedure is available, as it seems Bragg isn’t giving full allegiance to the duties he swore to uphold.
It is a common problem in major cities. When will the lunacy end?—Huntington Beach, Calif. Lee Doble
***
In response to Marguerite Bowling’s article: As a psychotherapist before I retired, I helped many parents understand the developmental stages of their children (“We Are Mothers. Here Are Our Reactions to ‘Woke’ Children’s Books“).
This is the key: What children at each developmental stage are capable of understanding and what their tasks are. A young child, one under 10, doesn’t have the cognitive development to understand sexual preferences, the concept of sexual activity, gay or straight, etc.
Individualization is a key task in early adolescence. Who am I looking to be? What is my goal? Establishing gender identity is part of that task.
It is dangerous to confuse or pressure a young child/adolescent over gender identity. They must be allowed to explore as is appropriate for their developmental stage without being misled for the sake of promoting political agendas.—Cynthia Naff
The Daily Signal offers a variety perspectives. This is not intended to represent The Heritage Foundation’s views.
