{"id":46319,"date":"2021-08-30T08:00:57","date_gmt":"2021-08-30T11:00:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/?p=46319"},"modified":"2021-08-30T10:36:01","modified_gmt":"2021-08-30T13:36:01","slug":"usaf-christian-pilot-objects-to-covid-mask-vaccine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2021\/08\/30\/usaf-christian-pilot-objects-to-covid-mask-vaccine\/","title":{"rendered":"USAF Christian Pilot Objects to COVID Mask, Vaccine"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"Though it doesn\u2019t seem to have broken into the mainstream press, a US Air Force instructor pilot at Columbus AFB, Mississippi, has been fighting for months to have the military honor his religious objection to wearing a mask. Two of the pilot\u2019s superiors approved the request, despite some misgivings. However, a third superior overturned that approval. As discussed in July<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The unnamed airman, identified as Capt. John Doe by the nonprofit First Amendment litigation firm Liberty Counsel, argues his \u201cChristian beliefs do not permit him to wear a mask,\u201d said the firm, which specializes in religious freedom cases. He was suspended from duty on May 17 and from flying on June 8\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As hills to die on go, this wouldn\u2019t be an ideal choice\u2026 but he does have a point.<\/p>\n

In the Air Force policy requiring masks published last February<\/a>, the very first exception was for religious beliefs:<\/p>\n

Effective immediately all individuals on Department property…will wear masks… The DAF-wide exceptions are as follows:<\/p>\n

(1) when necessary to reasonably accommodate a religious belief\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Capt \u201cDoe\u201d notes that two chaplains verified the sincerity of his religious beliefs, and multiple DoD policies \u2013 besides the explicit exception in the mask policy \u2013 direct that the DoD will accommodate<\/em> religious beliefs. When denied, Doe basically characterized the military\u2019s \u201cexception\u201d as a farce, since there was apparently no way a mask exception would actually<\/em> be permitted for religious reasons.<\/p>\n

One critic accurately pointed out that the US military is permitted to restrict what might otherwise be protected as religious freedom under the US Constitution, referencing Goldman v. Weinberger<\/em>. However, that reference ignores the fact the US Congress responded to Weinberger<\/em> by changing military policies to require the Air Force to do what the US Supreme Court said the military wasn\u2019t<\/em> required to do under the Constitution.<\/p>\n

In other words, while the Constitution does not require the US military to protect the religious exercise of its troops, US law does.<\/p>\n

Multiple laws and military policies require accommodation, with very few exceptions that relate specifically to mission accomplishment. In Capt Doe\u2019s case, there has been no indication that the mission would be adversely affected by him not wearing a mask. This was particularly true when vaccinated individuals were no longer required to wear a mask, since there was no visible difference between him and any other person.<\/p>\n

That said, why does Capt Doe object to the mask? It appears to be a call to integrity<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Mandatory masking is seen by many as the cornerstone of a social narrative \u2013 an \u201corthodoxy\u201d \u2013 that COVID-19 justifies unprecedented restrictions on individual, economic, and religious liberties. A mask mandate may offend the conscience of an objector, forcing him to confess \u201cby act\u201d his faith in what he perceives as a false narrative. Dr. Anthony Fauci\u2019s recently released emails support the position that mask mandates are not based in science, but in a false social narrative. Many Christians such as Captain \u201cDoe\u201d believe that support of a false narrative is participation in a lie, which is sin.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The intent to avoid \u201cparticipation in a lie\u201d is absolutely a valid qualification for religious exemption. It is, in essence, the same argument used by Christians who decline to recognize homosexual \u201cmarriages,\u201d<\/a> even in their official capacities.<\/p>\n

It is also much of the argument currently used by those who object to using \u201cpreferred pronouns\u201d<\/a> for individuals, rather than the biologically-correct pronouns based on a person’s actual<\/em> (not \u201cpreferred\u201d) gender.<\/p>\n

One problem for Liberty Counsel\u2019s Capt Doe is that he is objecting to participating in a \u201cnarrative\u201d, which is predicated on perception and messaging. The wearing of a mask is morally neutral; Doe objects to the wearing of a mask only in this context<\/em>. By contrast, those who may be required to address a woman as if she were a man would object to participating in a falsified fact; it is not a morally neutral act to address a person of one gender as if they were the other.<\/p>\n

Also, opposing a \u201cnarrative\u201d inherently presumes the motivations of all involved. For example, the US military may have no dog in the fight over the political argument that posits the use of COVID masks \u201cparticipate in a lie\u201d. Perhaps the military just wants to avoid mass simultaneous infections (regardless of the effectiveness of masks to that end), much like they would like to avoid troops all coming down with the flu at the same time. Even if the original argument is objectionable, the military\u2019s argument may<\/em> not be a derivative of it.<\/p>\n

In those regards, a COVID mask objection is not the best test case for military religious freedom.<\/p>\n

That said, the government is not allowed to judge the quality<\/em> of that religious belief \u2013 only that the Airman sincerely holds it. Doe has requested a religious accommodation to avoid \u201cparticipation in a lie,\u201d and has sincere religious beliefs to that end. According to the US military\u2019s own policies, it should grant that accommodation \u2013 which two of Doe\u2019s superiors did, prior to being overruled.<\/p>\n

If the US military is willing to grant visible religious policy exemptions for US troops who claim to follow faiths headed by Marvel super heroes<\/a>, why can\u2019t they grant an exception for someone who is making a claim to integrity?<\/p>\n

They could,<\/em> if they wanted<\/em> to \u2013 and Capt Doe may have a point. There is absolutely no mission impact to his request for a religious exemption to the mask mandate, but to maintain the public face of virtue signaling, the Air Force may not be able to actually implement<\/em> its own explicit exception to policy. For now, that represents Doe\u2019s strongest argument: The Air Force recognized the potential (and legal) need for religious exemptions when it originally wrote the policy, but it refuses to actually grant<\/em> one.<\/p>\n

The Department of Defense is preparing to enforce a COVID vaccine mandate, and Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said religious exemptions will still be available<\/a> (if rare<\/a>). It remains to be seen, however, if such exemptions would actually be granted.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The COVID vaccine mandate has inspired a rash of inquiries into ways to avoid it, including religious accommodation, as noted at Task & Purpose<\/a> \u2013 which also highlighted the history of courts-martial for those who refused the anthrax vaccine.<\/p>\n

In the interest of completing the story, it\u2019s worth noting that publicity-seeker and general malcontent Michael \u201cMikey\u201d Weinstein has yet to comment on this specific story. It\u2019s likely he hasn\u2019t even heard about it until now (in reading this article), given how distracted his \u201cresearch assistant\u201d Chris Rodda seems to be. That said, Rodda did post a rant<\/a> on a blog that denigrated virtually all US troops that might actually seek a religious exemption. According to the MRFF, a \u201cgenuine\u201d objector wouldn\u2019t even need<\/em> their help, since it is a requirement, in Chris Rodda\u2019s mind, that an objection to the COVID vaccine be predated by an objection to every other<\/em> vaccine. The MRFF has stated they will only support religious exemption requests to those who object to all<\/em> vaccines:<\/p>\n

Unless the service member really does belong to a religion that sincerely objects to vaccinations \u2013 ALL vaccinations, not just the COVID ones \u2013 our response will be: Sorry, Soldier, we\u2019re not buying your sudden religious devoutness against getting vaccinated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The MRFF\u2019s wholesale refusal to consider that one could legitimately have a religious objection despite previously getting vaccines seems to be predicated on an underlying premise that \u201canti-vaxxers\u201d are inherently conservative Republicans; therefore, requiring the vaccine (the opposite of what those conservatives presumably want) is good in their eyes. The irony, of course, is that the vaccines we have today were due in large part to the efforts of then-President Trump. Conservative Republicans generally don\u2019t object to the vaccine; they object to being required<\/em> to take it.<\/p>\n

For the record, the US military also requires an annual flu shot. Even if you consider COVID to be a 99.9% recovery non-event, as many do, the same could be said of the flu. Whether you view it to be a political exercise or not, it is within the military\u2019s purview to require vaccinations.<\/p>\n

Of course, they also say they permit religious exemptions. It remains to be seen whether they actually grant any of the exemptions they say they\u2019ll accept.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n