Jesuit Professor Says ‘Covid Vaccine Exemptions Should Not Exist’

Jessica Levinson – a clinical professor of law at Loyola Marymount Law School in Los Angeles, and is the director for the Public Service Institute there – recently had a piece published by MSNBC titled “Covid vaccine exemptions should not exist. Here’s Why.”

In her article she asserts,

As far back as the late 19th century, the Supreme Court has acknowledged it would be absurd to allow people to opt out of many generally applicable laws by simply claiming their religious beliefs compelled contrary action.

… The Supreme Court concluded in 1940, ‘Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.’

She also references a Supreme Court justice in 1879 from a case Reynolds vs. United States, to justify her position.

Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?

She further contended that the Constitution “is not a roadblock for such vaccine mandates.”

A major tenet of her argument revolved around the idea that many who say they are religious is not true, and using that to hide behind that as to hide avoid the shots because of personal choice.

Certain members of our society are seeking to avoid [vaccine mandates] by seeking religious exemptions.

She also noted that Pope Francis has advocated that Roman Catholics and others alike to get vaccinated.

The law allows for vaccine requirements without religious exemptions. Not only that, but morality mandates it. Therefore, we should abolish religious exemptions for vaccine mandates. Religious objections to vaccines are not a license to kill.

She also said

The College Fix reached out to her, and Levinson said she does not ‘engage in activism promoting her anti-religious exemption stance at the law school campus.’ However, she does believe that Covid-19 vaccinations should be a prerequisite to attend campus.

At the moment, Loyola Marymount University does provide a religious exemption for students who want it, but had to meet a deadline for enrollment for the fall semester.

‘When asked whether religious exemptions should inherently exist at religious institutions of higher education, Levinson responded in putting forth the proposition that Covid vaccines should be treated like any other vaccine, and thus be mandatory in spite of religious liberties,’ wrote the The College Fix.

I believe the Covid-19 vaccines should be treated like all other mandatory vaccinations in California for children to attend public and private school. There are no religious exemptions for those required vaccinations. Similarly there are no religious exemptions to many other health and safety laws.

She told the outlet via email

In her article for MSNBC, she noted that some states such as New York, Maine, California, and Mississippi – do not offer such as exemptions.

This trend of many Roman Catholic and Jesuit groups and institutions refusing to give religious exemptions to avoid the vaccine, seems to be continuing and growing.

---

AUTHOR COMMENTARY

“Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?”

My answer:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Colossians 2:8

[8] But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. [9] Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, [10] And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

Acts 13:8-10

This is just typical lying Jesuit sophistry at work: all this lying duplicity and sophistry, and these little games of philosophy and hypotheticals and relativism. It is of her father, Satan.

Furthermore, I do not need permission from ANYONE. The scriptures say again:

[28] Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. [29] Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Acts 5:28-29

So one minute these lying hypocrites are spouting their mouths off about “my body, my choice.” Now it’s ‘the state’s body, not your choice.’ But this witch wants to talk about how “morality mandates it.” You see? It’s just philosophy and relativism.

This reminds of a story that happened in the gospel of John:

[19] Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? [20] The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? [21] Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. [22] Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. [23] If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? [24] Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

John 7:19-24

So wait a second: I have to break other commands in scripture to supposedly fulfill another? And what are some of the scriptures that I would be breaking?

• Obeying man rather than God (Acts 5:29)
• Injecting myself with things strangled and from blood (the aborted fetal cells – Acts 15:20, 29)
• Being a friend of the world putting me at enmity with God (James 4:3-4)
• Defiling my temple (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)
  • Which would no longer make it holy (Romans 12:1-2)
    • Which therefore means I am committing works of the flesh that cause me to not inherit the kingdom of God – spiritual fellowship and millennial inheritance (Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
• I would not be using natural treatments from God’s creation to treat my sicknesses (Psalms 104:13-16; Ezekiel 47:12; 1 Timothy 5:23; Proverbs 17:22; 1 Corinthians 9:24-27)
  • I would not being praying for myself and the brethren when they are sick of something (James 5:13-18)
• All of which and more can be summarized with this:
• I would no longer be trusting Jesus Christ “which is [my] hope” (1 Timothy 1:1) and my life (Colossians 3:4); who assured me that he would deliver me “from the noisome pestilence” and “no evil [will] befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling” (Psalm 91:1-10) – but I would be trusting man, as the scriptures say: “Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD” (Jeremiah 17:5).

I could get really detailed if I wanted to, but I think you get the point. Two can play this game, honey. If you encounter these types of people, feel free to give them these scriptures. Answer them with the sword of the Spirit (Hebrews 4:12).

The bottom line is those seeking religious exemption, unfortunately, will not be getting it. All these wicked businesses and governments do not care about beliefs and liberty of conscience. You are not allowed to have freedom of thought or choice anymore.

[5] Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. [6] So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.

Hebrews 13:5-6

---