Application for Religious Exemption from Madness

The 11th Article of Faith in my religion states, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

I interpret this to mean that my faith, religious conviction, and morality is dictated, not by dogma, but by my own conscience. I believe that the intent of this article is to enthrone one’s system of personal belief. I believe that no one should be hindered or persecuted for their faith or beliefs.

I also believe that it is central to the domain of religion generally to clarify for its believers the difference between good and bad behavior. Many otherwise natural courses of action and human interaction are warned against because they offend God and hinder our spiritual growth.

Some immoral acts such as murder and theft, established at the heart of Judeo-Christian theology in the Ten Commandments, remain outlawed by governments around the world. Others, such as adultery and keeping the Sabbath, are no longer illegal in many cultures as the mores of the unreligious drift away from the morals of the faithful. Yet many such acts are still considered immoral by the religious and are avoided and condemned by religions worldwide.

The religious feel it is our duty to resist the moral drift of society. Occasionally, this resistance is vocal and contradicts the will of the majority. This was the case in 2008 when my church took a public stand in favor of California Proposition 8 that sought a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

My church hasn’t taken an official position against vaccine mandates yet. Likely it is because our church leaders have stated frequently that they will not take a public position on every moral issue (there are too many). Rather, the church teaches its members to use their God-given gift of discernment to avoid the many moral pitfalls they are faced with daily.

The gift of discernment is empowered by individual conscience. When a person who is attuned to their conscience is faced with a decision about a course of action, they feel prompted to pursue the moral course. Church leaders have warned believers against ignoring these promptings. To violate your conscience will lead to unhappiness as immorality obstructs your ability to feel the presence of God in your life.

This process involving discernment, conscience, and promptings is well understood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and is commonly referred to as personal revelation. It is enhanced by prayer and striving to live a life in accordance with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

My Church has taken a position, rightly in my opinion, that much good has come from certain vaccines. The Church encourages its members to prayerfully consider, in consultation with a competent medical professional, whether taking any vaccine is the right course of action for them. It is stated in the church’s General Handbook of Instructions, “Ultimately, individuals are responsible to make their own decisions about vaccination.”

My request for religious exemption is not based on the efficacy of vaccines generally or on whether any specific vaccine is effective or right for me. My religious and moral objection is against vaccine mandates and the many immoral courses of action pursued by the combination of government and big business.

First, threatening a person with loss of freedom, the right to travel, worship, associate, receive education, and especially labor and provide for their own living is immoral and these threats must be resisted by all people of good conscience.

Second, I believe it is immoral for a government to put in place a system whereby it can require its citizens to purchase and consume a product, especially one whose research and development was paid for by money extracted from those citizens as taxes.

If we allow this type of coercion to take place once, how can there be any limit to what a government can force its citizens to pay for and consume? Human beings are not a captive market for taxpayer-funded producers.

Third, I believe it is immoral for a government to use taxpayer money to purchase a product for which they also used taxpayer money to finance the research and development. This immorality is magnified when the government must subsidize and purchase the product with debt that will be paid back with interest at further taxpayer expense.

When governments collaborate with corporations and subsidize the development of a product for which the government promises to deliver a compliant market, it is a conspiracy. Conspiracy is illegal, let alone immoral.

To promise to pay for the purchase of a product from a corporation and distribute the product for the corporation to the obscene enrichment of corporate stakeholders is racketeering. One can only imagine what government officials receive in exchange.

To force a product upon consumers who are unwilling to receive it and are threatened with their livelihood if they do not, is nothing less than extortion.

Conspiracy, racketeering, and extortion are immoral and illegal and I will not participate in facilitating these crimes in any way.

Fourth, I also believe it to be immoral for a government to shield the producers of a product from the liability of adverse effects stemming from consumption of that product.

This type of protection is especially immoral when the consumers of a product are not nor can be informed of the short- and long-term risks of using it.

This immorality is compounded further when consumers are forced to ingest the product against their will.

And finally, the immorality of all this is magnified exponentially when the unwilling consumer is threatened, at the risk of losing their freedoms and right to work along with their health and well being.

In a free country, consumers are to be enticed by the obvious value and benefits of a product. This fundamental principle is protected by laws against false advertising. Ironically, one of the corporations being shielded from liability pled guilty in the past to felony violations of criminal and civil codes and was forced to pay over $2 billion in fines and damages for misleading consumers with their marketing.

If a business markets and sells an unsafe or ineffective product, it should be penalized by the government as the protector of the people, not subsidized and shielded by it. Yet all of the manufacturers of the products being illegally and unconstitutionally mandated by governments and businesses have been granted immunity from any liability for damages caused by their products.

Seventy-three years ago, amid the rubble of World War II, surviving witnesses of the genocide that was the consequence of evil and deceived people forcing their vision of a better world upon others, set up a standard called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 23 of the Declaration guarantees to all humans the right to work.

Fifth, along with the authors of the Declaration, I believe it is immoral to withhold the right to work. Vaccine mandates severely infringe upon this right as many are prohibited from pursuing the employment of their choice, for which they have been trained, and for which they are most qualified.

Article 26 of the Declaration guarantees the right to education and states that “professional education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.” 

Sixth, I believe it is immoral to deny the right to higher education to anyone on the basis of any other reason.

Seventh, discrimination is immoral. Creating categories of people based on their personal decisions such as religious belief or health and lifestyle choices and preferring those in one category over another is an abomination in the sight of God. It is my moral obligation to categorically reject this type of discrimination.

There is nothing morally acceptable about personal health mandates. It is my religious and moral duty to resist such unjust imposition of the will of wealthy and powerful people who seek through conspiracy, racketeering, and extortion to reduce humanity to a market for their goods and usurp our freedom to choose how we should manage our health.

One of our scriptures teaches, “Satan rebelled against [God], and sought to destroy the agency of man.” Thus, I believe it is the evil plan that God’s children should be forced to obey. God’s plan is that we should choose.

Therefore on these religious and moral grounds, I apply for exemption from the requirement to receive or consume any product as a condition of enrollment in your educational institution.