The fetal cell line “HEK 293” (The H stands for “human”) has been used in the testing phase of these vaccines. The organs belonged to a baby electively(intentionally) aborted in Holland in the 1970’s. While many google results will assure worried religious people of all faiths that not all of the vaccines contain fetal cells, they don’t generally mention that testing using fetal cells derived from an elective abortion was used in all of the vaccines. New information comes out frequently regarding the testing vs production use of these cell lines.
Dreamgivers believes that the Bible is the authoritative word of God and teaches against the murder of innocent human beings. We believe elective (intentional) abortion in any and all circumstances is murder.
Testing on a human being who’s life was taken against her will is in our opinion – tantamount to Eugenics.
While we believe the decision to refuse the COVID 19 vaccination at this time is a legitimate religious stance, we also adhere to the Supreme Court decision that no individual needs approval or disapproval from a clergy member or religious organization to express their right of conscious.
(See Position on Vaccine Mandates).
Position on Vaccination Mandates
We consider it a Biblical stance that the medical decision to receive or decline any vaccination is a choice made by the individual. Medical advancement is a result of God given creativity and diseases conquered through vaccines as well as natural treatment and immunity can be miracles of God. But the individual right of conscious is likewise a result of God given creativity and the formation of the Bill of Rights is an undeniable miracle of God. Anyone who objects to a vaccine or who wishes to take a vaccine on the right of conscious – for reasons of religious conviction- is exercising this God given principle. (Link to “Biblical Christianity: The Origin of the Rights of Conscience”
We agree with President Harry Truman in that, “The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.”
Here are some quotes from America’s Founding Fathers expressing the idea that the rights of conscious are given directly by God:
“No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority. It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself to resist invasions of it in the case of others, or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. Our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted – we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God.”
“Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.” John Hancock
“While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the rights of conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men and to Him only in this case they are answerable.” George Washington
“The rights essential to happiness. . . . We claim them from a higher source — from the King of kings and Lord of all the earth.”
– John Dickinson
In America, this religious liberty and right of conscious is decided by the individual, and a church, denomination, ministry, or pastor’s permission does not make an individual’s belief legitimate or illegitimate. Note this from the Pacific Justice Institute:
“The Supreme Court has stated clearly that the ‘guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs
which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect.’ Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S.707, 16 (1981). In view of this, the specific convictions of the individual are sufficient. That does not mean that a letter from a religious institution where one worships or a member of the clergy cannot be supportive. ‘Undoubtedly, membership in an organized religious denomination,
especially one with a specific tenet forbidding members to work on Sunday, would simplify the problem of identifying sincerely held religious beliefs, but we reject the notion that to claim the protection of the
Free Exercise Clause, one must be responding to the commands of a particular religious organization.’ Frazee v. Illinois Employment, 489 U.S. 829, 834 (1989). Thus, it does not matter that some or most persons that practice the same faith within the same religion or denomination find a specific belief or practice ‘scripturally acceptable.’ Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. at 716. It is often the case that congregants attending the same local house of worship have sincerely held beliefs that differ. Hence, the high court has consistently found that a shared tenet of faith is not necessary to support a sincerely held belief.”