This newsletter is free and goes out to over 26,000 subscribers, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can subscribe via Patreon or the Subscribe button below! You can also make one-time donations through Venmo, CashApp, or PayPal.
The Iowa Supreme Court has rejected a nursing student’s plea that he deserved a “religious exemption” to getting vaccinated against COVID. His school didn’t buy his excuse, leading to a lawsuit, but the courts have upheld the school’s argument that religion had nothing to do with this and the guy has been lying about it the whole time.
The unanimous ruling makes for a glorious read.
In November of 2021, Andrew Perry, a nursing student at (private Christian school) Dordt University in Sioux Center, refused to get vaccinated before starting his clinical rotations. He needed the exemption, he said, because it violated his religious beliefs, but the school said no.
It all boiled down to the idea that religious beliefs must be “sincerely held” for the exemption to be granted and Perry didn’t have any credibility, something the Iowa Supreme Court noted in their decision.
For example, the school said, Perry didn’t even care about the issue. His anti-vax parents put him up to this: His mother Galyn said she wouldn’t pay for school if he got vaccinated. Perry himself said in an email to the chair of the nursing department, “I personally do not have a problem with the vaccine” and even “volunteered and received training to help give the vaccine to others.” When pressed in court to explain why he didn’t want to get vaccinated, religion didn’t even come up. It was all about his mother’s threat to stop paying for his education. Perry even admitted to the school that he was thinking about getting the vaccine behind his mother’s back.
Even though both sides tried to work out a compromise, there was no way around the vaccination. The school explained this wasn’t their decision, but rather a requirement of all the sites where students were receiving their training.
Eventually, Perry settled on the idea that religion would be his way out. The school said he just needed to prove he had religious reasons for not getting the shot—like a “published position” against vaccines from his denomination or proof that he had received religious exemptions during his K-12 education. He had neither.
Instead, Perry said “his body is a temple of God and that he must be a steward of his own body. Thus… if he were to knowingly put something in his body that would only hold risk for his body, he would be violating that religious belief.”
That wasn’t enough. The school needed documentation. He didn’t provide it. So they said no.
Eventually, after realizing 20 other nursing schools weren’t going to accept credits from this private Christian school and would also require him to get vaccinated, he settled for admission into Palm Beach Atlantic University—another private Christian school—and left Dordt.
But where the decision really gets interesting is the description of what Perry said under oath when he was cross-examined about the sincerity of his religious claims.
The court noted that “Andrew clearly did not have issues with introducing other things into his body that were unhealthy or a risk to his health.” Specifically, the court noted that “Andrew conceded that he had been drunk with friends in the past” and also that “he vapes nicotine.” The court also noted Andrew’s testimony “that Gayln objects to his vaping, but has never threatened to cut him off financially if he did not stop vaping.” “Gayln also never threatened to cut off Andrew financially for drinking alcohol to excess.”
Beautiful. His “temple” can’t handle vaccinations but it’s apparently fine with nicotine and alcohol. His mother knew about those things but never even suggested cutting him off for all that. (Perry’s lawyer later argued that this was unfair because the school didn’t know about his vaping or drinking, so how dare they use that against him? but the court didn’t buy that argument either.)
Making matters worse, Perry claimed not getting vaccinated was his decision… even though he also testified that his mother threatened to cut him off financially over it. Yet, when asked what he would do if she changed her mind, he said he would be fine with getting vaccinated.
This guy is an opposing lawyer’s dream.
Ultimately, the court didn’t buy his argument that Jesus was the reason he couldn’t get vaccinated. It was about money, and there’s no My-Mom-Pays-My-Tuition exemption to getting vaccinated. (The lower court even said “Andrew’s argument would have carried more sincerity if he had contended he was trying to follow the religious commandment of ‘honor thy father and mother’; however, that is not a claim that he ever asserted in this case.”)
You almost feel bad for Andrew because he had to make up all these lies to satisfy his batshit crazy mother, but he’s an adult, and he went along with it. So too damn bad. He can live with the consequences of knowing he couldn’t even overcome the extremely low bar of using your religion to get out of following a rule everyone else has to obey.
His desire would have made it easier for COVID to spread—which should have been a dealbreaker for someone who wants to go into the medical field—but thankfully the school refused to honor that idiotic request and they were vindicated in court.
You can watch the full oral arguments here:
It feels rare for a court to reject someone’s request for a religious exemption because you can’t probe their mind. But in this case, there was plenty of evidence that religion played no actual part of Perry’s refusal to take public health measures. He lied about his faith and everyone caught him. You can’t say your body is a temple only when mommy won’t pay for tuition.
Part of me feels bad for the situation Andrew Perry was placed in, but he’s not a child. He couldn’t deal with his overbearing, crazy, conspiracy-believing mother, so she became everyone else’s problem.
The Iowa Supreme Court got this right. They didn’t rule against his religion; they ruled against his sincerity. That makes a huge difference. While religious freedom is important, it shouldn’t be used as some magical phrase to get out of anything you want. It shouldn’t be a loophole, even though that’s often what it seems to be these days.
To be clear, a religious exemption shouldn’t be automatic. Someone’s faith shouldn’t make it easier for others to get infected with a virus. But at the very least, you should have to prove you’re serious about your faith if you’re going to use that excuse to harm others, and this family couldn’t even do that.
(via Religion Clause)
"To be clear, a religious exemption shouldn’t be automatic."
The concept of a religious exemption shouldn't even exist.
This guy reminds me of a joke I heard when I was a kid:
"I don't drink, I don't smoke and I don't swear." *pause* "God damn it, I left my cigarettes in the bar!"