.
.
“But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.” [Ezekiel 33:6]
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” [Ephesians 6:12]
Presbyterians Week Headlines
[2] The Reformed Church in America Faces Rupture over LGBTQ Gridlock
[3] Christian Parents Launch Legal Action over Extreme Trans Policies in Primary Schools
Additional Articles of Interest
—
Calaveras Presbyterian Church hereby sets forth its sincerely held beliefs and proscriptions against the following cited COVID-19 Vaccines:
Bases of the Position:
Calaveras Presbyterian Church holds to the sanctity of human life at all stages from conception and it holds to the absolute inadmissibility of medicines/pharmaceuticals prepared using fetal therapy.
The Church believes it to be definitely inadmissible to use the methods of so-called fetal therapy, in which the human fetus at various stages of its development is aborted and used in attempts to treat various diseases and to “rejuvenate” an organism. Denouncing abortion as a sin, the Church cannot find any justification for it even if someone may possibly benefit from the destruction of a conceived human life. Contributing inevitably to ever-wider spread and commercialization of abortion, this practice presents an example of glaring immorality and is spiritually criminal as a violation of Divine Law.
Calaveras Presbyterian Church firmly holds that Scripture defines appropriate Christian behavior. Because of this, it would be a violation of our faith to receive the following coronavirus vaccines:
Pfizer and BioNTech – The Pfizer Vaccine was protein tested using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Moderna – The Moderna Vaccine was protein tested using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is cited by the vaccine researchers Kizzmekia S. Corbett, Darin K. Edwards, and Sarah R. Leist.
Johnson & Johnson – The J&J Vaccine has publicly admitted to using a cell line called PER.C6. This is published on the Janssen website. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute.
Sputnik V – The Sputnik V Vaccine cites their manufacturers as using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293.
AstraZeneca – AstraZeneca was developed using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is also contained in documents permitting its emergency use in the United Kingdom.
Vaxart – Vaxart was produced with the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Altimmune – The Altimmune vaccine was produced and developed with the abortion-derived cell line PER.C6. This information is recorded by Altimmune’s own Clinical Trial Protocol. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute.
COVAXX and United Biomedical – COVAXX was protein tested using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Medicago – The Medicago Vaccine was protein tested using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Novavax – The Novavax Vaccine was protein tested using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by researchers at ScienceMag.
University of Pittsburgh “PittCoVacc” – PittCoVacc was produced with the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by EBioMedicine at the Lancet.
Walter Reed Army Institute – The Walter Reed Vaccine was produced with the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Sanofi Pasteur and Translate Bio – The Sanofi Vaccine was developed and protein-tested using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by the vaccine researchers at NPJ Vaccines.
Inovio Pharmeceuticals – The Inovio Vaccine was protein tested using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by researchers at ScienceMag.
Arcturus Therapeutics – The Arcturus Vaccine was protein tested using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Imperial College London – The Imperial College Vaccine was developed and protein-tested using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Providence Therapeutics – The Providence Vaccine was developed and protein-tested using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
CoronaVac – CoronoVac was protein tested using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by researchers at ScienceMag.
CanSino Biologics – The CanSino Vaccine was protein tested using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute [2]. This information is recorded by researchers at BioSpace.
ImmunityBio and NantKwest – The ImmunityBio Vaccine was developed, produced, and protein tested using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293.
This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Institut Pasteur and Themis and Merck – The Institut Pasteur Vaccine was developed and protein-tested using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293.
This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
Rega Institute, KU Leuven – The Rega Vaccine protein tested using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by the Global Virus Network.
Anhui Zhifei – The Anhui Zhifei Vaccine was developed and protein-tested using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by the Cell Press Journal.
Clover Biopharmeceuticals – The Clover Vaccine was protein-tested using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute. This information is recorded by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Calaveras Presbyterian Church also holds that the transplantation of organs or tissue from a living donor can be based only on the voluntary self-sacrifice for the sake of another’s life. In this case, the consent to remove an organ or tissue becomes a manifestation of love and compassion. However, a potential donor should be fully informed about possible consequences of the extraction of his organ or tissue. Any rationale that presents an immediate threat to the life of a donor is morally inadmissible.
This position condemns the harvesting of biological material from a subject without his or her informed consent. This condemns the usage of any vaccines manufactured utilizing stolen organs, thereby also condemning the CureVac Vaccine because it was protein-tested on HeLa cells which were harvested from an African-American mother of five in 1951 without her knowledge or consent. This information is enumerated by the Lozier Institute, according to an account in John Hopkin’s Magazine.
Calaveras Presbyterian Church expresses its categorical opposition to conducting experiments on human embryonic cells. It further declares that the effort to improve life cannot pass through the destruction of millions of human beings of embryonic age.
This absolutely condemns the bulk of the already above-mentioned vaccines which are the product of testing on cells harvested from aborted fetuses. This would make it a contradiction to our Christian faith to receive those vaccines even if said vaccines genuinely benefited us.
Calaveras Presbyterian Church holds to mandatory principles for the moral use of human organs and tissues, and states: “Because the extraction of organs implies the consent of the donor, extraction of tissues from an embryo is inconceivable given the fact that although alive, this one cannot give its consent.”
On this basis, the Church condemns all medical work profiting from the harvesting of cells from an embryo, or, in fact, any medical work profiting from the harvesting of cells from a non-consenting individual. This statement alone condemns all the above-mentioned vaccines on the basis that they come from either an aborted fetus or a non-consenting individual; in the vast majority of cases, these vaccines are condemned by both qualifications.
As one who holds to the doctrines and teaching of Calaveras Presbyterian Church, the undersigned asserts that receiving the vaccines mentioned above would be participating in the sin of abortion.
All of the above is a confirmation that it is not only the right of the undersigned to not be subject to the COVID Vaccine, but my duty as a Christian. It is contradictory to Biblical faith which mandates the preservation of all innocent human life. It cannot be justified and may even lead to eternal spiritual condemnation. It is our duty therefore to claim an exemption to the mandate to receive the COVID Vaccine.
The following are our sources for the above facts concerning the use of tissue from aborted fetuses in the creation of the aforementioned vaccines:
The Lozier Institute Lists a number of COVID-19 Vaccines which utilize aborted fetal cells – https://lozierinstitute.org/update-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/
The Pfizer Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.08.280818v1.full
The Moderna Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2622-0
The Johnson & Johnson Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://www.janssen.com/emea/emea/janssen-vaccine-technologies
Sputnik V Vaccine citing trial tests of their manufacturers = https://sputnikvaccine.com/about-vaccine/human-adenoviral-vaccines/
Sputnik V manufacturers acknowledge usage of aborted fetal cells – http://actanaturae.ru/2075-8251/article/view/10302/106
The UK Government acknowledges AstraZeneca’s usage of aborted fetal cells – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-regulation-174
The Vaxxart Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.04.283853v1.full
The Altimmune Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://clinicaltrials.gov/ProvidedDocs/67/NCT03232567/Prot_000.pdf
The COVAXX Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.30.399154v1.full
The Medicago Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.04.20226282v1.full-text
The Novavax Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6520/1089
PittCoVacc utilized aborted fetal cells – https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(20)30118-3/fulltext
The Walter Reed Vaccine utilized fetal cells – https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441763v1.full
The Sanofi Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-021-00324-5
The Inovio Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16505-0
The Arcturus Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.03.280446v1
The Imperial College Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.22.055608v1
The Providence Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.11.443286v1
CoronaVac utilized aborted fetal cells – https://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2020/05/05/science.abc1932.DC1
The CanSino Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2020/05/05/science.abc1932.D
1
The ImmunityBio Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.29.227595v1.full
The Institut Pasteur Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/117/51/32657.full.pdf
The Rega Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-3035-9
The Anhui Zhifei Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30812-6
The Clover Vaccine utilized aborted fetal cells – https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.24.311027v1.full
The HeLa Cells were harvested without informed consent – https://pages.jh.edu/jhumag/0400web/01.html
APPENDIX A
FURTHER THEOLOGICAL BASIS FOR OUR POSITION
We believe that the Triune God who revealed Himself in His dealing with the people of Israel, and then most particularly in the coming of the Son of God, Jesus the Messiah, and today in the ministry of the Holy Spirit in His Church, made mankind in His image, and gave to man dominion over the world as His steward and representative. In opposition to the assertions of secularism, we assert that man’s life has transcendent value because of this act of special creation on the part of God. God’s law, therefore, is the highest standard by which man, God’s creature, is called to live and abide.
For this reason, we condemn as a blatant act of rebellion and murder the destruction of the lives of unique pre-born humans in the womb. The plague of abortion brings God’s judgment upon any nation or people who would place their self-claimed sexual liberty above that of the value of human life as God has proclaimed and defined it. Obedience to the commandment to preserve life is multi-faceted and provides a broad and deep understanding of how Christians are to seek to honor God by honoring life itself.
We also assert that while we are to preserve life, we are to do so in accordance with God’s will. God’s law provides for freedom, for liberty of conscience, and these realities are to be exercised by mankind in light of God’s revealed will that man is to live for His glory always recognizing his own mortality and the briefness of life. We are not to live in constant fear of death, and indeed it is for this reason that the gospel removes our dread of death and gives to us life eternal.
Christians therefore proclaim Christ’s Lordship over all realms, for, as He claimed, all authority has been given to Him in heaven and upon earth (Matthew 28:18). In light of His Kingship, we assert that men and women have the right to refuse mandatory medical procedures, actions, medications, or injections, whether these actions are ordered by the highest government authorities, or lesser authorities, such as an employer or local magistrate. They may do so when they are convinced that these medical procedures could threaten their life, their future health, their future fertility, and their wellbeing. Further, parents have the right and responsibility to make said decisions for their children as well, without external interference.
Acknowledgement: Above sourced from position statement of Apologia Church.
Additional Rationale in Support of Refusal to Accept a COVID Vaccine, namely that Refusal Will Not Be a Threat to Others
Below is a list of reasons why it would not impede mission readiness, nor disrupt my physical capacity to perform my duties if I do not receive a COVID Vaccine.
The Low Mortality Rate of the Disease
The particularly low mortality rate of the disease, but also its distribution by age, clearly denote that vaccination, whenever it becomes feasible, must be targeted. This percentage is fictitiously over-evaluated for the time being (~2.5%) : on the one hand, due to the over-representation of severely positive cases of the virus, and on the other, given that the death toll from COVID has also included the deaths of cases found positive for COVID but with other, underlying diseases (not the SARS respiratory syndrome). The Center for Disease Control (CDC) admits this, saying only 5% of deaths involving COVID-19 had COVID as the exclusive cause of death. Recent studies which have estimated the number of deaths in relation to the actual number of people exposed to the virus – based on serological tests (antibody tests) in a specific geographical area – have determined that this percentage is of the order of magnitude of seasonal flu (certainly <1%). The fact of the matter is that COVID has a 99.74% survivability rate, so saith the CDC.
COVID Mainly Affects People in the Third and Fourth Age Groups
COVID mainly affects people in the third and fourth age groups, where the phenomenon of immune senescence occurs – that is, the reduction in size, quality and duration of their immune response-protection – which can occur, after being vaccinated. In other words, the vaccine-induced active immunity may not be capable of protecting the elderly, who are the “target” of the corona virus; hence, the finding of an anti-viral therapy should be a priority – assuming that the protection of the elderly is in fact what is desired. Youth are affected very marginally, almost not at all.
Asymptomatic Transmissions of COVID are too Insignificant to Warrant the Mandate of a Vaccine
Researchers at Nature Communications and the Journal of the American Medical Association both found that asymptomatic transmissions of Coronavirus are less than one percent. In the case of JAMA, 0.7% of transmissions were among households, which would undoubtedly be lower in the general population or, hypothetically, a short time in a workplace where we are already spread apart, or an even shorter time in close proximity due to the infrequency or nature of such gatherings. Previously I spoke about deaths due to the virus, but it is probably even less likely that I would spread it to another person, if I had it, than the likelihood that I would die from it. The vaccine’s main purpose is to prevent the spread of the disease to others, but that is already incredibly unlikely, not only due to natural herd immunity, but also because, at this point in time, most people who have desired the vaccine have received it, making any mandate of it among those who do not want it frivolous.
Among the Seriously Ill, the Vaccine May Actually Cause More Harm Than Good
With seriously ill patients, acute respiratory failure occurs through an immuno-pathological mechanism (a “storm” producing inflammatory cytokines and reducing CD4 and CD8 T-mediated immune response). There are serious concerns that vaccination will exacerbate this immune complication in the event of a subsequent viral infection and will consequently worsen the patient’s clinical course. A similar effect was observed with the FeCoV coronavirus vaccine, which affects cats and causes peritonitis.
In the 12-29 Age Group, there has been a notable risk of heart inflammation due to the COVID Vaccine.
The CDC reports that there have been many reports of myocarditis and pericarditis following the reception in mRNA vaccine recipients. These are inflammation of certain heart muscles, the myocardium and the pericardium respectively. The vaccine has caused multitudes of people who are not allergic to any product in them to suffer heart inflammation. Many have even died. Therefore, the COVID Vaccine is not only a spiritual threat, as indicated in the prior documents, but also a physical threat. It seems to me very impractical, inconsiderate, and even abusive to mandate a vaccine that has such a high rate of physical harm to a recipient.
The logic of eradicating an infectious disease through global vaccination, on the one hand presupposes the existence of a very safe and very effective vaccine, and on the other hand, most importantly that there be no other hosts of the virus in the natural environment. That is, man has to be the only species that can host the virus. This is true of the polio virus, but it does not apply to the coronavirus, because all research suggests that the virus originated from bats. Unknown and controversial remains the intermediate link (host?) which had transported it from the bats’ caves of Wuhan city. In any case, the disappearance of the virus through global vaccination would only be temporary – in other words, a terrible waste of resources, inasmuch as it could transfer from its natural refuge (the bats or the intermediate host) to the human population at any given moment, capably mutated for bypassing the existing herd immunity and initiating a new pandemic.
Coronaviruses, being RNA viruses, mutate rapidly, gaining genetic and therefore antigenic diversity. This diversity, especially for coronae, also increases through RNA recombination, due to the particularly inconsistent mode of transcription of viral RNAs. Two types have already been identified for SARS-Cov2, S and L. It is doubtful that a vaccine can provide both equal coverage for all strains of the virus that emerge, as well as permanent protection over time, hence underlining one more time the importance and priority of finding anti-viral drugs against coronavirus. It is quite likely, therefore, that over time, a global vaccination evolve into regular global vaccinations.
Multiple, Eminent Health Authorities from All Across the World Have Warned Against the Safety and Efficacy of Coronavirus Vaccines
Dr. Peter Hotez, UK scientist Hilda Bastian, and former Vice President of vaccine-manufacturer, Pfizer, Dr. Michael Yeadon have all warned against the safety of the COVID Vaccines due to the nature of their creation.
Vaccine development usually takes many years or decades, whereas the coronavirus vaccine has been manufactured in less than 12 months. I am not willing to receive a “fast-tracked” product, as by definition, fast-tracking a product means there is no data on long-term safety.
Current Pfizer CEO Unable to Say if Vaccine Will Mitigate COVID Transmission
Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, was unable to confirm if any of effectiveness of the COVID Vaccine. It is evident from the above that the vaccine has a negligible effectiveness and a great chance of harm caused to a recipient of the Vaccine. The Vaccine certainly has greater risks than it does benefits.
Adverse Reactions and Death Caused by the Vaccines are Underreported
According to a study done by Harvard, at the commission of the United States Government, less than 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are actually submitted to the National Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS). These problems have yet to be fixed.
It is unpredictable what negative effects will be suffered from the reception of the vaccine; therefore, I find that it would be inappropriate to mandate the vaccine and, in fact, harmful.
I believe that this is sufficient evidence to conclude that it would not be against the best interests, nor would it be a threat to the health and safety, of the environment, workplace, or my compatriots for me to not receive the COVID Vaccine.
The following is a list of sources demonstrating the above claims that refusing the vaccine would not be a significant threat to others:
1: That COVID Deaths are over-evaluated due to false positive tests for the virus – https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1113.long
2: That only 5% of Deaths had COVID as the only cause – https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
3: That COVID has a death rate of less than 1% – https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v2
4: That COVID only marginally affects the youth – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2265901/
5: That COVID has an almost zero percent chance of asymptomatic transfer – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w
6: That COVID has a less than one percent chance of asymptomatic transfer among individuals living together within the same household – https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774102
7: How Acute Respiratory Failure Occurs – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S205229752030024X
8: That FeCov Worsens a Subject’s Clinical Course – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16322745/
9: That mRNA Vaccines have a chance of causing Heart Inflammation – https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7027e2.htm?s_cid=mm7027e2_e&ACSTrackingID=USCDC_921-DM60791&ACSTrackingLabel=MMWR%20Early%20Release%20-%20Vol.%2070%2C%20July%206%2C%202021&deliveryName=USCDC_921-DM60791
10: Mutations in COVID – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7108124/
11: Mutations in COVID [part 2] – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7108196/
12: Dr. Peter Hotez on the unsafe nature of the Vaccine – https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-vaccines-insight/as-pressure-for-coronavirus-vaccine-mounts-scientists-debate-risks-of-accelerated-testing-idUKKBN20Y1I1
13: Scientist Hilda Bastian on the unsafe nature of the Vaccine – https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/
14: Former Vice President of Pfizer, Dr. Michael Yeadon on the unsafe nature of the Vaccine – https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/diagnostics/no-need-for-vaccines-covid-effectively-over-ex-pfizer-vp/79445839
15: Current Pfizer CEO Unable to Say if Vaccine Will Mitigate COVID Transmission – https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9018547/Pfizer-CEO-not-certain-covid-shot-prevents-transmission.html
16: That Adverse Reactions and Deaths due to the Vaccine are underreported – https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Lazarus-report.pdf
17: Monk Paul of Mount Athos Against the Vaccine – https://orthodoxethos.com/post/de-mystifying-the-vaccine-for-corona-virus
18: The Worth in Being Skeptical About the Vaccine – https://www.deconstructingconventional.com/post/18-reason-i-won-t-be-getting-a-covid-vaccine
19: Anonymous Exemption Request – https://miriaf.webs.com/hospital-worker-test-vaccine
20: 99.74% Survivability Rate of COVID – https://www.nbc26.com/news/coronavirus/cdc-estimates-covid-19-fatality-rate-including-asymptomatic-cases
APPENDIX B
Basis in U.S. Law for Refusing an Emergency-use COVID Vaccine:
- 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 – Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies
The above-cited U.S. Code includes provisions stating the obligations of government to inform individuals about using emergency-use medications:
(ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed–
(I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;
(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and
(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.
- EEOC RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) says employers are legally able to mandate Covid-19 vaccines to employees. However, the EEOC also says employees may refuse to get the vaccine based on their “sincerely held” religious beliefs and may request a religious exemption.
The EEOC says employers must provide a reasonable accommodation if the employees’ sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents them from receiving the vaccination.
The EEOC, which enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, uses a very broad definition of “religion.” It includes membership in a church or ministry, a belief in God, and firmly and sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs.
Acknowledgment: Much of the material cited above was adapted from research and positions of various Eastern Orthodox churches.
+ Calaveras Presbyterian Church, Vallecito, California, Contact Page
[2] The Reformed Church in America Faces Rupture over LGBTQ Gridlock
By Kathryn Post
This week, North America’s oldest denomination will confront its gridlock over LGBTQ ordination and same-sex marriage. Votes cast in Tucson, Arizona, at the Reformed Church in America’s General Synod—delayed 16 months due to the pandemic—will chart the course for the already-splintering denomination.
+ Wall Watchers, 2514 Plantation Center Drive, Matthews, North Carolina 28105, Contact Page
[3] Christian Parents Launch Legal Action over Extreme Trans Policies in Primary Schools
A Christian family has launched legal action against the government over failures to protect their children from transgender guidelines being used in their son’s Church of England primary school, and nationally.
Supported by the Christian Legal Centre, Nigel Rowe, 48, and his wife Sally, 46, will pursue a judicial review over the Department for Education’s (DfE) refusal to intervene in their case and its promotion of what lawyers describe as ‘politically partisan’ Cornwall Schools Transgender Guidelines.
The policies provide schools, teachers, and governors, with guidance on how transgender ideology can be embedded into the fabric of a schools’ culture.
They include how to implement gender neutral toilets, encourage schools to accept cross-dressing and gender transition without question, and include links to controversial groups such as Mermaids.
Published in 2015 by campaigners for transgenderism, their legitimacy has significantly risen after being held up as best practice by other schools and local authorities, and even the Department for Education since 2018.
Experts backing the Rowes’ case have described the guidelines as leading to ‘catastrophic’ outcomes for children in primary school settings.
Labelled ‘transphobic’
In 2017 the Rowes, from the Isle of Wight, were the first parents to expose the impact these policies were having in primary schools.
They were given a choice by the Church of England school their sons were attending of either affirming transgenderism, which they believe is harmful, or being labelled as ‘transphobic.’
Because they felt unable to approve of the trans affirming approach they were forced to leave the school. As a result, they have now been home schooling both their children for the past four years and believe they have been vindicated as the damaging impact of trans ideology in education continues to be exposed.
The decision followed their six-year-old son coming home from school confused that a boy in his class had begun inconsistently wearing a dress and identifying as a girl.
Their eldest son had faced a similar issue two years previously at the same school and had to be withdrawn.
Mrs Rowe has spoken of how positive the experience of home schooling has been, but also the significant sacrifices she has made, which has included giving up her teaching career to protect her children.
The Rowes believe Christian parents, and any parents who disagree with trans ideology, have been placed in an impossible situation. They either have to home school or risk their young children being indoctrinated in state education by an ideology that extensive evidence shows causes children harm.
They are calling for the Cornwall Guidelines to be overhauled and for Christian beliefs on the issue of gender to be respected and tolerated in state education.
‘Have to accept it’
Meeting with the head teacher of the Church of England primary in 2017, the Rowes were told in regards to a child transitioning gender that: “if a child wants to do that then we just have to accept it.”
The headteacher added that she could lose her job if she did not follow the guidelines.
Following the meeting, the Rowes set out their concerns in a formal letter asking what measures were in place to support all children in a primary school environment when a child chooses to change their gender.
They also contacted the Diocese of Portsmouth and the Church of England’s Chief Education Officer. In response, the school, having taken advice from the Diocese of Portsmouth and citing the Cornwall Guidelines, defended its behaviour.
The school said it had policies to tackle ‘transphobic behaviour’, which included an inability to believe a transgender person was a “real” female or male; refusing to use the person’s adopted name or using “gender inappropriate pronouns”; and feelings of discomfort and an inability to trust or connect with someone based on their transgender status.
The school added that they did not “require any formal medical/psychological assessment and reporting when a pupil seeks to be treated as transgendered.”
It said it was working “at every stage’” with the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust (TPHT) in supporting transitioning children at the school.
The school stated that “the close contact with these agencies will ensure that we act appropriately at any given stage as children move through the school.”
Since this letter in 2017, TPHT, which runs the UK’s only gender identity development service for children, has been rocked by scandal with numerous cases citing the danger the Trust poses to the well-being of young children.
Since the Rowes’ ground-breaking story broke, the impact of trans ideology has escalated to the point primary school children are now being encouraged in Scotland, for example, to change their gender without their parents’ knowledge.
Furthermore, in the past decade, the UK has seen a 3,000 per cent spike in children being referred to gender identity clinics.
Expert reports
Following the response from the school, the Rowes withdrew their son and began to build their legal case by instructing experts to report on the impact transgender affirming policies have on young children.
Despite many experts in this field being silenced by trans activists, Dr Rogers, a consultant psychologist with 30 years’ experience in the field of psychiatry, reported on the dangers transgender affirming policies have on young children.
His report stated that the Cornwall Guidelines places emphasis on ‘equalities legislation,’ while: ‘research and the needs of young people were ignored. The policy showed little or no appreciation for the safety and welfare of children and adolescent or their developmental needs. The approach of the guidance was ‘as if’ the children were fully mature adults.’
The report also stated that the guidance ‘contains no warnings of the effects of transgender medication, many of which were understood at the time the document was produced and additional ones that are now accepted, even by the NHS.’
He added that the guidance ‘shows no understanding of the effects of puberty or the process of adolescent development, or its role in this change’, and that it ‘appears to miss the role of child and adolescent development, the normal variations in gender and sexual development or the concept of ‘safeguarding.’’
Dr Rogers also made the crucial point that 88% who experience gender dysphoria as children grow out of it, post-puberty.
‘Catastrophic outcomes’
Psychiatric expert, Dr Paul Rodney McHugh, Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in the US, reported on the long-term physical consequences that can occur because of an overly affirming approach to transgenderism, such as is set out in the Cornwall Guidelines.
Dr McHugh concluded his report stating that: “Policies which affirm a child in their gender confusion without requiring psychological evidence are highly damaging to the children involved.”
He added that “leading experts in the area of psychiatry and paediatrics argue that abundant scientific evidence exists showing that transgender-affirming policies do none of the children they are meant to serve any real or lasting good; that it harms the vast majority of them; and that it leads to catastrophic outcomes for many such afflicted children.
“There is no other area in medicine where we unconditionally allow children to choose their own diagnosis.”
Calls for intervention
With the expert reports included, the Rowes lodged a formal complaint to the DfE calling on the Secretary of Education to intervene in their case and to review the use of the Cornwall Guidelines in primary schools.
Despite the scientific evidence and expert reports not being disputed, the DfE refused the request in July 2021 stating that: ‘The Secretary of State has found no evidence to suggest that the school’s action, at the time, posed a risk to any child at the school, including Mr and Mrs Rowe’s two sons. The evidence reviewed also suggests that the school’s approach regarding gender identity was focused on the wellbeing of pupils.’
Wholly disagreeing with the government’s position, the Rowes now face no alternative but to pursue a judicial review.
‘We believe it is wrong’
Nigel Rowe said: “This is not just about boys wearing dresses. This case is about an ideology that is now embedded in schools, local authorities, and Church of England leadership, and is causing serious long-term harm to thousands of children.
“We believe it is wrong to encourage very young children to embrace transgenderism. Boys are boys and girls are girls. Gender dysphoria is something we as Christians need to address with love and compassion, but not in the sphere of a primary school environment.
“We took this action with heavy hearts, but having seen how this issue has escalated, we feel vindicated and believe the government must be challenged.
“The Cornwall Guidelines must be scrapped and replaced with a policy that protects children from partisan materials that lead them down a road of irreversible harm.
“We have been shocked that the government has refused to act on the clear evidence presented to them and face no alternative but to pursue a judicial review.”
Sally Rowe said: “We were given no choice but to home school our children. We, and our sons, either had to go along with what we believe is a lie or face being labelled as ‘transphobic.’ It is not possible for Bible-believing Christians to bring their children up in line with their beliefs under such policies and approach.
“We have been blessed that home schooling for our children has been a positive experience, but we are concerned for other families who are not able to home school and are forced to risk having their children indoctrinated by these guidelines.
“Six-year-old children are not able or even allowed to make decisions on voting or having a tattoo, for example – it is therefore immoral to think that they can make such life-changing decisions at such a young age. As a society we are called to protect children, and these guidelines and the culture they are embedding in primary schools is achieving the opposite.”
‘Public health crisis’
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “Nigel and Sally Rowe were the first parents to courageously take a stand against trans ideology in our schools. They exposed the confusion and untruths being embedded in primary schools which have since developed into a public health crisis.
“They did this because of their Christian faith, and their heart, not only for their own children, but the thousands of children who are being affected.
“International experts on gender confusion have put their heads above the parapet and have provided a way forward pointing to a better and more compassionate way for schools to handle these complex situations.
“Despite all the warnings in their story, trans ideology continues to work its way into the fabric of our schools and our society unabated. The truth and the devastating testimonies from parents and their children who have been harmed don’t appear to resonate with the government or education authorities.
“Vulnerable children are being used as pawns and will continue to be harmed the most.
“It is chilling that Christian parents who want to bring up their children in line with their Christian beliefs cannot trust state education to be kind to them and make room for them.
“We will stand with the Rowes as they continue to seek justice and to protect the well-being of so many vulnerable children in primary schools.”
+ Christian Concern, 70 Wimpole Street, London W1G 8AX, England, 020 7935 1488, Contact Page
Additional Articles of Interest
– The Great Struggle of Our Time: The Battle for Reality
– OSHA Openly Advocates Ignoring Vaccine-Related Injuries
– It All Makes Sense Once You Realize They Want to Kill Us
– Tyranny: Canadian Pastor Forced by Government to Repeat ‘Medical Experts’ from the Pulpit
– Nebraska Attorney General’s Devastating Critique of the Suppression of Effective Covid Therapies
– Pandemic of the VACCINATED Generating Mutant Virus Strains, More Infected Than Unvaccinated?
– America Suffers Record Drug Overdoses Since COVID Lockdowns Began
– We Can’t Sit This Out: We’re Dealing with a ‘Criminal Conspiracy’ to Usher In Global Socialism
– 100-200 Members of Congress, Families and Staff Treated with Ivermectin. No Hospitalizations
Comments are closed for this Article !