In our current age of woke domination and historical ignorance, the words of Joseph Noyes speak to us through the centuries.

By the "middle of the 18th century, Yale College was beginning to show the effects of the religious toleration that was gaining ground everywhere in the colonies.  When President Thomas Clap, in an effort to create a sectarian institution, tried to expel the Reverend Joseph Noyes from the Yale corporation, he was met by opposition both from Noyes himself and from another spokesman of an opposing Congregationalist faction.  Noyes, whom Clap suspected of having fallen from the faith, was asked to submit to an examination by other members of the corporation."  Noyes absolutely refused this request.[1] 

On September 14, 1757, Noyes asserted that

[t]he law or resolve upon which my examination is founded is arbitrary; for a man to be subjected to an examination, on suspicion only, is contrary to all reason.

Said law or resolve is manifestly unjust, as it subjects a man, though innocent, to suffer in his character and influence, and leaves him without remedy.

Said law or resolve is singular and unprecedented, there having never been hereto any law or rule of the like nature in this Corporation, or any other Christian community, except the Courts of Inquisition and Star Chamber [emphasis mine].

Said law or resolve is inconsistent with the ecclesiastical constitution of this colony.  I am accountable to the consociation to which I belong, touching my principles, and not to this board.

Noyes reminded his audience that "all legal processes, according to the common law, must be built upon some express accusation or charge, to be supported by proper and sufficient evidence; but suspicion and surmise are always discountenaced."

Yet, 265 years later, in the Age of COVID, we see students and faculty deprived of their jobs and/or education because institutions of higher learning have decided that they are now the modern-day Star Chamber.  It now appears that comparing COVID restrictions to Nazism is quite apropos.

At Penn State, employees who refuse vaccination face re-education and counseling.  Consequently, "non-compliant faculty must meet with an executive ... to discuss their intent to be fully compliant.  Further administrative actions will be discussed ... and will include expectations for progress toward compliance, potential for unpaid administrative leave, and other disciplinary steps up to, and potentially including, termination." 

In Maryland, "Loyola Marymount University does offer the religious exemption option for students.  That opportunity, like many universities, came with a deadline for enrollment for the fall semester, according to the university website."

Yet, law professor Jessica Levinson,[2] "when asked whether religious exemptions should inherently exist at religious institutions of higher education," maintained that "Covid vaccines should be treated like any other vaccine, and thus be mandatory in spite of religious liberties."

Thus, the law professor "argued that the larger issue is that people who are not religious will take advantage of the exemptions citing a faux devotion to a certain faith in order to avoid receiving the vaccine based on personal choice, and thus for personal reasons."

In other words, "to Levinson, the religious exemption law is merely a loophole: 'Certain members of our society are seeking to avoid [vaccine mandates] by seeking religious exemptions.'  She emphasized that '[t]herefore, we should abolish religious exemptions for vaccine mandates. Religious objections to vaccines are not a license to kill.'"

Those who oppose the vaccine mandates explain their case.  Peter Cordi[3] of Rutgers University, New Jersey wrote in August of 2021 that "never in [his] four years at Rutgers [had he] received such vicious, vulgar and venomous personal attacks ... since taking a stand against my school's vaccine mandate."  He has been called "a monster, a fake Christian, a murderer, stupid, irresponsible, a liar, and better off dead."

I believe anyone who wants to be vaccinated should do so, but those who do not want to be vaccinated should be free to abstain without being denied their education and without being discriminated against and segregated based on their vaccination status.

As a healthy, 22-year-old male with no underlying health conditions, I have chosen not to be vaccinated, and believe the FDA warning of the myocarditis risk as well as potential long-term health risks associated with spike protein accumulation in the bone marrow outweighs the potential benefit of the shot in my case.

As a Christian, I believe my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and I should not ingest unnecessary and potentially hazardous pharmacopeia, especially those manufactured and tested using aborted fetal cell lines.

In addition, the lawsuit filed against Rutgers "argues the vaccine mandate is unconstitutional and discriminatory as it violates [people's] rights under the 14th Amendment, which defends against onerous dictates that violate Americans' right to liberty and personal freedom."

One point that especially unnerves Cordi about the mandate is "that the vaccine manufacturers cannot be held liable for any injuries or deaths caused by their drug."

So if Rutgers is mandating us to get the vaccine and something happens to one of the students as a result, who is responsible here? We already know from the VAERS data there has reportedly been some 600,000 adverse effects and 13,000 deaths, so it seems like a question that deserves an answer.

And then there are the so-called medical exemptions.  Yet,"[t]he narrow scope of these medical exemptions is alarming: the exemptions are so medically unsound and unduly restrictive that they create a clear and present danger to the health, and potentially, the lives, of students subject to these mandates."

Respected medical authorities (Andrew Bostom, et al.) concur that "[n]one of the schools whose published criteria we have examined include the most elementary medical ground of all: natural immunity from a previous Covid infection."

In addition:

The CDC is not a medical institution; it is a public health and disease prevention body. According to the CDC's own mission statement, the agency focuses on 'disease prevention and control, environmental health, and health promotion and health education activities.' It is not qualified and usually does not purport to offer professional medical opinions applicable to specific patients.

From time to time, the CDC offers findings and recommendations that competent medical practitioners often will consider in arriving at a professional medical judgment for a particular patient. In this respect, CDC guidelines are analogous to guidelines from other public health associations or medical societies: they are guidelines, not prescriptions.

Furthermore, "none of the current vaccines have passed fertility, teratogenicity, or mutagenicity testing, thus may be contraindicated in women of childbearing potential or those about to become pregnant."

And, finally, "several published rubrics include a limitation that is eminently sound in itself, but which is, in an important way, quite dangerous. It is that exemptions are available where there is 'a documented anaphylactic allergic reaction or other severe adverse reaction to any Covid-19 vaccine — e.g., cardiovascular changes, respiratory distress, or history of treatment with epinephrine or emergency medical attention to control symptoms.'"

In other words, "put yourself in danger to find out if you're in danger."

Tell that to the mother whose three-year-old died of a heart attack after being required to receive the vaccine to enter kindergarten.  Explain this to the families of two teenage boys where heart inflammation was the primary cause of death after being injected with Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine.

In reality, why are any exemptions necessary? 

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.