Bible Verses that Oppose Abortion and by Extension any Vaccine that Relied Upon the Use of Fetal Cell Lines
by Christian, civil trial attorney, RL Johnson
Generally, both the COVID-19 vaccine and the preventative injection are inapposite to the word of God because some of the COVID-19 vaccines—in various stages of vaccine development and manufacturing—used cells originally isolated from aborted fetus cell lines (e.g., the HEK-293 or the PER.C6). For instance, the COVID-19 vaccine and the preventative injections were derived in direct defiance of the Lord’s prohibition against murder. Thus, the faithful are called to rebuke and reprove the works of the wicked. See, e.g., Proverbs 17:15; Isaiah 5:20; Ephesians 5:11; 1 Timothy 5:20; Titus 1: 12-13; and, consider Peter's words to Simon (Acts 8:17-22).
Consequently, the faithful should remove any confidence the wicked might gain by thinking they are
right in the eyes of the Lord. Indeed, if believers approve the works of the wicked, remain silent concerning the wickedness of the wicked, or lie concerning the works of the wicked suggesting that they be righteous, he or she strengthens the hands of the wicked and is likewise an abomination to the Lord.
This understanding is crucial to Christians who oppose abortion and by extension any vaccine that relied upon the use of fetal cell lines. Thus, as I explain in my related piece Legal Protections for Christians Who Oppose Vaccines and Same-Sex Marriages, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) is implicated where an employee seeks an accommodation from job requirement due to religious beliefs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.” 42 USC §2000e-2(a). Title VII also requires, among other things, that covered employers reasonably accommodate a worker's sincerely held religious objection to a Biblically offensive job requirement. Provided, that is, the the employee’s religious observance or practice does not impose an undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business. 42 USC §§2000e-(j) and 2000e-8(c). Note well that “[t]he duty to accommodate pertains to prospective employees as well as current employees.” 29 CFR §1605.3(b)(1). It also applies to the federal government, employment agencies, and labor organizations. 42 USC §2000e(b). (RELATED: I am Looking for Assistance Filing a Religious Exemption to My Employer’s COVID Vaccine Mandate)
Sincerely Held Religious Belief Defined
So, let’s start with clarifying how the law defines a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance?
“In most cases whether or not a practice or belief is religious is not at issue. However, in those cases in which the issue does exist, the [government defines] religious practices to include moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. This standard was developed in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) and Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970).
With this definition in hand, the first take away from this piece is this: A “religious belief, practice, or observance” is not determined by the mere fact that no religious group espouses your particular beliefs. Similarly, the fact that the religious group to which the you profess to belong may not accept your beliefs does not determine whether your belief is a “religious belief, practice, or observance.” See, e.g., 29 CFR § 1605.1.
Obtaining a Religious Accommodation
In order to be accommodated, however, the belief must be "religious" and fall within traditional religious views involving ultimate ideas about life, purpose, and death—but need not be widely practiced. Further, because the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, observances, and practices with which the employer may be unfamiliar, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief.
Indeed, the test under Title VII’s definition of religion is whether the beliefs are, in the individual’s “own scheme of things, religious.”[i] Belief in God or gods is not necessary; nontheistic beliefs can also be religious for purposes of the Title VII exemption as long as they “‘occupy in the life of that individual “a place parallel to that filled by . . . God” in traditionally religious persons.’”[ii] The non-discrimination provisions of the statute also protect employees who do not possess religious beliefs or engage in religious practices.[iii] Thus, the EEOC, as a federal government enforcement agency, and its staff, like all governmental entities, are tasked to carry out its mission neutrally and without any hostility to any religion or related observances, practices, and beliefs, or lack thereof.[iv]
If, however, an employee requests a religious accommodation, [RELATED: Legal Protections for Christians Who Oppose Vaccines and Same-Sex Marriages] and an employer has an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, observance, or practice, the employer would be justified in seeking additional supporting information.[v]
To consider whether an accommodation is being made consistent with a sincerely held religious belief, the employer must consider, among other factors, whether the employee behaves markedly consistent or inconsistent with the belief. Closely connected to this consideration is the often asked question: What is the doctrinal (i.e., faith tenant-based) or scriptural belief, practice, or observance that conflicts with the company’s vaccine requirement?
God's Word Concerning the Care of Our Bodies and Souls
That said, what does the Christian Bible say about caring for or bodies and souls? While my list is by no means all inclusive, here are my top 17 scriptures:
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Genesis 9:5-6
5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.
Exodus 20:13
“You shall not murder.
Job 31:15
Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?
Psalm 127:3
Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.
Psalm 22:10-11
10 On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
11 Be not far from me, for trouble is near, and there is none to help.
Psalm 139:13
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Galatians 1:15
But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace,
John 10:10
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.
Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 19:18
He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness,
Romans 14:1-23
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. ...
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
1 Corinthians 3:17
If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.
That said, Christians would do well to remember that: “The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all.” Psalm 103:19 (ESV)
See also John 19:10-11 (ESV) where it is written that Pilate questioning the Master thus:
"Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?" Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."
ENDNOTES
[i] Indeed, the EEOC itself notes that this is a common formulation of the notion of “religion [or] religious belief” that derives from the seminal Supreme Court decisions interpreting the conscience exemption in the Military Selective Service Act, 50 U.S.C. § 3806(j). See, e.g., Redmond v. GAF Corp., 574 F.2d 897, 901 n.12 (7th Cir. 1978) (“We believe the proper test to be applied to the determination of what is ‘religious’ under § 2000e(j) can be derived from the Supreme Court decisions in Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), and United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1969), i.e., (1) is the ‘belief’ for which protection is sought ‘religious’ in person’s own scheme of things, and (2) is it ‘sincerely held.’” (quoting those decisions)); Fallon v. Mercy Cath. Med. Ctr., 877 F.3d 487, 490-91 (3d Cir. 2017) (applying same test to Title VII claim of religious discrimination); Davis v. Fort Bend Cnty., 765 F.3d 480, 485 (5th Cir. 2014) (same); Adeyeye v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC, 721 F.3d 444, 448 (7th Cir. 2013) (same); EEOC v. Union Independiente de la Autoridad de Acueductos, 279 F.3d 49, 56 (1st Cir. 2002) (same); see also, e.g., EEOC Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion, 29 C.F.R. § 1605.1 (stating that EEOC has “consistently applied” this standard to Title VII).
[ii] To support this proposition, the EEOC itself cites Fallon, 877 F.3d at 491 (quoting Welsh, 398 U.S. at 340 (quoting Seeger, 380 U.S. at 176)).
[iii] The EEOC itself notes that this is exemplified by Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1168 (9th Cir. 2007) (addressing “non-adherence or reverse religious discrimination claim”); Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 933-34 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[F]or these purposes, . . . ‘religion’ includes antipathy to religion. And so an atheist . . . cannot be fired because his employer dislikes atheists.”); Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat’l Lab’y, 992 F.2d 1033, 1037 (10th Cir. 1993) (plaintiff claimed he was fired “because he did not hold the same religious beliefs as his supervisors”); Young v. Sw. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 509 F.2d 140 (5th Cir. 1975) (finding Title VII violated by requiring atheist employee to attend prayer portion of business meeting).
[iv] To support this proposition, the EEOC itself cites Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 1731‐32 (2018) (holding that a state administrative agency’s consideration of baker’s First Amendment free exercise claim opposing alleged violation of public accommodations nondiscrimination law “violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint” and apply laws “in a manner that is neutral toward religion”); Epperson v. Ark., 393 U.S. 97, 103-04 (1968) (“Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”); see also Bd. of Educ. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 714 (1994) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“We have time and again held that the government generally may not treat people differently based on the God or gods they worship, or do not worship.”).
[v] See the EEEOC’s Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination, Section 12: Religious Discrimination, §12-I-A-3.
Helpful Links:
• Christian Legal Society
https://www.christianlegalsociety.org
• The Library of Congress’ website:
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/guide/states.php
• Civil Pro Se Forms
https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/civil-pro-se-forms
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure
• Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) system
Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is offered for educational purposes only and is not intended to substitute for legal advice and is not customized to your particular needs. Before undertaking self-representation, we urge you to consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your state.
Comments