☰
×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
31

Working on my COVID religious exemption request. I thought you might like to see the shit they spew out.

submitted by totes_magotes to whatever 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 12:13:36 ago (+31/-0)     (whatever)

Have you been previously vaccinated?

Yes

If “Yes” to the previous question, please provide an explanation in the Appendix Sheet detailing any changes in your religion, belief, or observance that have occurred since your last immunization, or the reason(s) that you believe your religion, belief, or observance now prevents you from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

This is a leading question and is wholly offensive as it precludes answers which are not based on a general "anti-vaccine" philosophy or spiritual belief. As such, it is completely irrelevant as worded and in the future I would strongly appreciate not being grouped with anti-vaccine people. Further, “the COVID-19 vaccine” is an uneducated view which clearly and plainly says that all COVID vaccines are identical. They are not. Moderna and Pfizer are mRNA technologies, Johnson & Johnson is an adenoviral vector approach. All three use the full spike protein sequence. Novavax uses a protein subunit approach where moth cells are used to incubate viral patterns before refinement and introduction to soapbark tree extract to boost immune response. Please keep this in mind going forward.


I'm writing what amounts to a sermon and I really should have been a minister or something... Imma have some of my family (lots of preachers in my family) review it before posting here and submitting. Keep your eyes open for it.

In the meantime, look up 1 Thessalonians 5: 21.


44 comments block

sort by: hot new top old low

[ - ] HughBriss 1 point 3.5 yearsOct 23, 2021 13:45:12 ago (+1/-0)

Hey totes, I'm in the same boat, and it looks like my company gave me the same application form you have. I stopped at the question about previous vaccination and I've been considering how I want to answer that. I've concluded that I will answer neither yes nor no, because I believe this is a solicitation of private medical information that is protected from disclosure under HIPAA. I very much like your answer, correctly calling it out as a leading question.

I think it's a damn improper question and one that bears no relevance to the subject of religious objection. Asking questions about elective medical decisions is a slippery slope, and it can lead to soliciting information on other things, such as whether one had a vasectomy, a tubal ligation, gastric restrictive surgery, accepted a blood transfusion, and many, many other such questions.

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 1 point 3.5 yearsOct 23, 2021 15:00:04 ago (+1/-0)

HIPAA doesn't apply unless you intend to call them out on how they're going to secure that info. HIPAA regulates what they can do with that data, not whether or not they can ask for it.

This is a legal request, same as an accommodation request for a disability. Treat it as such. You have to tell them that you need that accommodation, what accommodation you need, and why.

Further, you can "be offended" thusly:

Before I begin, I feel that I must make it clear that I am deeply troubled that I must bring my religious beliefs into the workplace and place them on display for judgement and discernment. It has been my lifelong practice to keep all manner of my religious practices completely private from anyone and I am offended that I must bring it out to others as we are clearly instructed to pray and practice our faith in secret (Matthew 6:5-8). Still, I understand the reasoning and that no offense may have been intended and see it as a mechanism to respect my faith and am grateful for the opportunity to compile my beliefs in a coherent manner for you to understand.

[ - ] HughBriss 1 point 3.5 yearsOct 23, 2021 16:26:04 ago (+1/-0)

Thanks for the reply. This is great information, and I appreciate the clarification. I saw your answer to the vaccination question, and I think I'm going respond similarly and use your "offended" language too, rephrasing it in my own words,

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 1 point 3.5 yearsOct 23, 2021 16:46:45 ago (+1/-0)

My exemption filing is still being studied by work. I'll post the entirety of it once it passes (instead of now on the off-chance that I screwed something up because I don't want to pass on anything iffy). There will, of course, be people unhappy with that because they wanna have the whole "fight 'em now" approach which, for most people, will just end up getting them fired, losing everything, and then having nothing to fight with. Like I said, it's all a legal arena so you gotta be legal. It might serve you well to look up some of the past posts for the legal links because I scoured through them to compile some of the best info.

While you're waiting, however, I would encourage you to examine I Thessalonians 5:21: "Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good." This is a key that allows you to bring in analytical data but it will only work in certain circumstances. I'm not shilling for any vaccine at all but, this being what it is, we know that the 3 vaccines available in the US have severe side effects for many while Novavax has none. It's being distributed worldwide, is getting ready for full FDA approval in the US now. The side effects you get are the same as with a flu shot: Fever, chills, nausea, headache, and a chance of fatigue on the second shot. In context of that verse, you have the capacity to say "Look, these shots have problems while this other one doesn't which means that in comparison, these three are not 'good' in any way when I have the possible option of one that has NO harmful side effects." From there, you can actually pull in official data, news headlines, and so on as long as you keep them as official as possible. You can even mention that the FDA refuses to endorse boosters. That Moderna has been put on indefinite freeze/hold in Sweden and Denmark because of dangers. Things like this. Your safest legal game is deflect, delay, deny. "I won't take these, but I have no problems with this, we'll see when it gets here." Always make the goalposts movable.

Like I said, it's a legal game. Legal means words. The workload of a lawyer and judge is research and writing based on that. It's a job where you write research papers. Your job is to consolidate your beliefs and write a research paper based on that. You can keep it short or you can include citations. But whatever you do, it cannot be based solely on abortion (that's such an old horse that everyone has ready-made attacks against it) and it cannot be "because no" and it cannot be "because I'm against all vaccines" because then you need to explain why (remember, what, how, and why just like disability accommodation requests) without tripping yourself up and saying that you're against other specific medical treatments because then it's on file that you have those oppositions and an on-the-job injury would really fuck you up. And since this is a legal request, your exemption absolutely is going to be read and examined by lawyers. They've seen more of this and more people trying to abuse religious exemption requests than you might imagine. All you have to do is come up with your faith-based reason and then be able to explain why it's against your faith. Of course, no, you really don't have to do that but just like a disability accommodation request, they can examine and challenge it and ask you questions. So you can leave it short, if you want, but then you might get asked questions and have to think on the fly. Just remember, this is a research paper. Nothing more.

[ - ] HughBriss 0 points 3.5 yearsOct 23, 2021 17:32:59 ago (+0/-0)

I can't thank you again. This is excellent counsel and I promise you I will heed it. You're absolutely correct, this is a legal game, and I fully expect my request to be read by many people, who know every angle and are trained to look for inconsistencies, insincerity, or opportunism. I Thessalonians 5:21 is also wise counsel, and I'll keep it in mind as I proceed.

From my teens, I was raised in the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, and although I have nothing to do with the group itself, I firmly believe many of their doctrines. This is absolutely true and verifiable. I strongly agree with them on their stance on blood, which surprises me that they find vaccination acceptable. This, in fact, is one of the reasons I have nothing to do with the group, because the religion is controlled by "the Governing Body", an autocratic group of about 10 senior corporate administrators. They refer to the entire religion, from the Governing Body down to rank and file, as "Jehovah's organization", which I interpret as a group of men acting as the sole interpreters of God's word. They are absolutely unaccountable, and their doctrine has changed frequently over the decades. When I was in my 20s, I left because I decided Jesus never intended to have a church or an "organization" to lead his children. I believe he wanted us to meet and organize ourselves, and the "ecclesia" isn't a building or an organization, but the congregation itself. Anyhow, that's how I see it, and since "Jehovah's organization" is a de facto cult, leaving it is a decision I never regretted.

I was unreligious for a few decades until about seven years ago, when my faith in God was restored -- I believe it was Jesus calling me back. It was a very emotional time for me, and I still feel like the prodigal son and still have the same sense of gratitude and humility that I was welcomed back. I discussed this with my mother, who is still part of "the organization", and she was incredibly happy to see my return of faith. She knows I won't be active in evangelism, but she knows I now share many of the tenets and doctrines.

My former manager is a Mormon, who was very open about his faith, and while he never discussed it in public, he told everyone that if anyone would like to discuss it with him, he would be very happy to do so. I took him up on this, and we had several heart to hearts about my newfound faith. There are many similarities with the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, which is partly because they started from roughly the same region of New York and about the same time, and we discussed this. He was also a Mormon missionary at one time, so this was probably a very personal duty and privilege to listen to me and help guide me to a better relationship with Christ.

I plan to mention this in my application because I think more detail I include the better, in order to prove that this is not a case of opportunism but a sincere and genuine declaration of my faith and why I object to vaccination. For me, it's an issue of blood purity (Acts 21:25), which to me in the tradition of my faith means not only the prohibition of the consumption of blood, but the contamination of the body and one's blood.

This was lengthy. I didn't mean to go on so long, so thanks for reading this.

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 0 points 3.5 yearsOct 23, 2021 17:49:18 ago (+0/-0)

I wouldn't mention any of that in your exemption. Only mention it if they ask. They shouldn't need to because of the aforementioned legal stuff I included (either here or elsewhere) that you don't need to prove that any specific faith or church forbids it. You had a fracture with The Church and it's irrelevant in light of the legal precedent. Including that will likely give them a reason to deny you. If nothing else, it certainly doesn't help you prove your point.

I was raise fundamental baptist. OH MAN, you wanna talk about strict. I had my own crisis of faith when my dad died. I found it again 11 years ago. I'm grateful every day that I lived long enough to come back to it admittedly with a lot less crazy. I went through my art degree (my second which meshes well with my programming degree) and had an extra credit I needed to fill so I took a Bible study class. The Old Testament. Like the WHOLE OT. Read it, studied it. During that time, I picked up a habit of studying other religions. I literally could have presented in my exemption as Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, pagan, Native American, and even Satanic and been solid. Hindu and Native American would have been a challenge but I probably could have pulled it together. The problem is that I would have been pegged as that religion by the company going forward. I'm really not in this for the fight (yet) so I didn't go out of my faith. On the note of comparative religion, you'd be surprised just how close many Hindu and Christian principles are and if you get bored, look a book called "The Holy Science" which goes through SO many verses and Christian laws and draws Hindu parallels. From a comparative perspective, it really is interesting.

Anyway, don't flood them with extraneous stuff. Anything that doesn't strengthen your position is fluff. I'm sure maybe you could make a point of saying "Now that I've found my faith again, I will not challenge or abandon it" and be solid but if your life itself hasn't been showing it, you've put a noose around your neck. For example, you can't say "My body is a temple" yet smoke.

Romans 13:5 urges you to follow laws and rules but only so far as your conscience will allow. You've developed your conscience through faith in God and He has given you not only His image but also His likeness. Included in that likeness is:

free will as well as speech (Revelation 1:15), sitting (Revelation 5:7), breathing (Genesis 2:7), an appreciation of wine (Judges 9:13), sight (Genesis 18: 3), bathing (Genesis 18:4), and eating (Genesis 18:8). This is to facilitate a closer relationship with God and to have a mutual understanding of each other more than a “nebulous cloud of light” or similar might allow

That's actually directly from my exemption filing. When you consider that the vaccines available in the US all use a full spike protein, it really isn't a choice, is it? That curtailment of choice, especially when given a time/deadline curtails the likeness of God in you. Honoring the likeness of God in you is "good" and James 4:17 says "to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." To not honor the likeness of God in you IS sin. Even Adam and Eve had the free will from the likeness of God to choose to sin.

And here's a key phrase: No one can stand in your place when God judges you. It's all on you.

[ - ] HughBriss 0 points 3.5 yearsOct 23, 2021 18:19:44 ago (+0/-0)

Very observant. You've clearly more attuned to the legal aspect of this than I am. I'm glad I related this to you, so I could get the perspective of someone who's also doing this and how it might be received. And I think you're correct.

You make a good point, to keep it focused on specific things in the faith. I thought the purity of blood aspect was particular enough, and since there's enough of a precedent with the JWs, it would be credible. (Not to mention the fact that I genuinely believe it and it's actually why I won't be vaccinated.)

Since there's a question about whether I previously received vaccination, and why I now won't be vaccinated, it comes down to "epiphany", a new realization and understanding of what I think God's will is. Do you think that's specific enough and provides a solid enough basis without bringing a lot of tangential personal history into it?

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 0 points 3.5 yearsOct 23, 2021 19:07:23 ago (+0/-0)

I don't particularly understand why "purity of blood" is important so maybe the people examining your exemption won't either. If it's that critical and important, it needs to be treated as such so that they can understand why it's important.

Your crisis of faith might actually play into your sudden change of heart when it comes to vaccination. In this case, a brief "I had a crisis of faith but found that of late it's been very important to me especially when potential death is a stark reality." Or something like that, right?

[ - ] account deleted by user 9 points 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 12:33:32 ago (+9/-0)

account deleted by user

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 6 points 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 12:41:44 ago (+7/-1)

You're falling right into it, headfirst. They're controlling the narrative by assuming that you're completely anti-vax even if you're not. YOU control the conversation and by saying "I'm opposed to all vaccinations", you're fucking yourself hard because then you have to explain why you oppose all vaccinations and if it's based on abortion, you're already fucked. You really have no clue what you're doing here. Deny, delay, deflect. That's what you do. This is a legal arena, not "muh freedoms" arena.

[ - ] account deleted by user 5 points 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 12:50:23 ago (+5/-0)

account deleted by user

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 4 points 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 13:15:19 ago (+4/-0)

You do not answer leading questions in any way. You call out leading questions. What you're suggesting not only is an answer but (for me) would be untrue. A lie. False witness. A sin. And also something they can fire me over.

When you answer their leading questions, you give them control. You yank it back by calling it out and correcting them.

[ - ] account deleted by user 3 points 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 13:32:20 ago (+3/-0)

account deleted by user

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 2 points 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 13:45:25 ago (+2/-0)

You do not answer leading questions. Ever. Period. End of story. Your sledgehammer approach gets people denied.

[ - ] cyclops1771 1 point 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 13:54:55 ago (+1/-0)

You do not answer questions, period. *FTFY

Anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law. You will now have to defend any statement against a judge and a defendant lawyer who has more money than you to hire "expert" witnesses to testify against you after they deny you, and fire you, and you try to sue for discrimination.

Any cop of defense lawyer will tell you the same thing, never, ever offer more information than the minimum required by law.

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 0 points 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 14:09:20 ago (+0/-0)

You're a complete retard shill, aren't you. Your bullshit gets people rejected. End of story.

[ - ] cyclops1771 1 point 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 14:20:35 ago (+1/-0)

yes, totes, I am a complete retard shill. lol.

Best of luck, truly. I just don't think using logic to get people to change their minds on a position they didn't use logic to get themselves into in the first place is going to do any good. I think it is a lost cause, because all they have to do is say is "No." and then what? Seriously, and then what?

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 1 point 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 14:51:33 ago (+1/-0)

There's literally two questions here. You can't lie about either because if you lie about having been vaxxed, that's termination and/or lawsuit. The other is "What is your objection." As they word it, "What changed."

By calling out their bullshit leading question, you have changed the conversation and control what's happening. It's no longer a question about "Why are you anti-vax? Why are you against COVID vaccines?" That's what they're really asking. My response completely destroys that and turns it into what I want it to be about.

You literally have to answer those two questions. This is why your bullshit doesn't work, retard.

You've never been on the end of a religious minority issue. I have. I know what I'm doing. My religious upbringing actually had all kinds of sermons and classes on how to deal with that shit because it was so fucking fundie. The more radical a religious group is, the more they talk about shit like this.

If they say "No", you sue the shit out of them. If you didn't provide any support for your "muh freedoms" claim, the judge will throw it out straight-away without a second glance. You're "muh freedoms" bullshit just fucked you. That means you make a claim, you provide why it's against your belief and make it airtight with all the support for your shit that is needed. You stick to what you espouse in your life because the second one single concern comes up, you're fucked. You can't just say "muh baby cells in the Fascist Fauci Ouchie" because then they'll ask you all kinds of really difficult questions about your medical use (headache, cold medicines, so forth and so on). And those AREN'T religious questions. And if you frame it on anything that's been in the courts time and again, they already have the knowledge to shred it.

You really REALLY don't know what you're doing here.
Continue thread

[ - ] BitterVeteran 1 point 3.6 yearsOct 10, 2021 09:22:39 ago (+1/-0)

**Your sledgehammer approach gets people denied.

No it doesn't.

[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 3.6 yearsOct 11, 2021 09:45:34 ago (+0/-0)

account deleted by user

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 0 points 3.6 yearsOct 11, 2021 13:04:26 ago (+0/-0)

for the reasonable fear that if others have knowledge of them it may engender discrimination against me and/or my family.

They will then have every reasonable legal recourse to explain what things you have observed that would lead you to believe that you will be discriminated against and they will ask for specific examples. If you don't have any, you're fucked.

If, however, you give sound religious references, they can't question that. Not one bit, not one inch.

You have to be very careful how you go about it. This is a legal arena and it doesn't matter what the subject is.

[ - ] Clubberlang 1 point 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 22:24:51 ago (+1/-0)

It's not a vaccine it's a non approved experimental thereputic

[ - ] Not_C 1 point 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 15:12:31 ago (+1/-0)*

You need to add in things like -

I'm glad you're asking these questions. It is great to see that you and your department are admitting that you don't understand what the Covid vaccines are, how they work, and what makes them different from traditional vaccines.

I am well aware that some employees have not received the same level of education as others in this company. So I will do my best to explain this in simple enough words that you and your staff will hopefully be able to understand.

Then at the end -

I apologise if some of my big words were too difficult for certain "differently-advantaged" people to understand, and some of the phrases I used may have been phrases that they have never heard before. So if any of you disagree or don't understand what I have said, I'd be happy to try to explain it in simpler terms.

They're trying to say - "You can't be against vaccines if you've been vaccinated in the past. Haha. Gotcha."

Spin it and say - "If you're asking questions, that means you don't know the answers." - By doing that, you lead the conversation instead of them. And make sure to talk down to them in order to remain in control of the conversation.

[ - ] Teefinyomouf 1 point 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 21:29:23 ago (+1/-0)

They're trying to say - "You can't be against vaccines if you've been vaccinated in the past.

Spirital growth is a thing. Learning and changing is a tenet of most religions. It's a dumb question. All you really need to say is that you've righted your behavior.

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 0 points 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 16:48:55 ago (+0/-0)

That would be gratifying but full denigration of HR and their lawyer team won't fly. However, saying that I am religiously offended is a spin they cannot fight.

[ - ] BitterVeteran 0 points 3.6 yearsOct 10, 2021 09:24:02 ago (+0/-0)

**full denigration of HR and their lawyer team won't fly

Says who? You? Bullshit.

[ - ] Ragnar 0 points 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 21:39:54 ago (+0/-0)

Very nice. Keep going

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 0 points 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 21:50:21 ago (+0/-0)

I've since revised it. Comparatively speaking, this sucks. I've already written the whole thing and it's sound. I've had a preacher read through it and they found no problems with the references or analysis. I'm gonna submit it and wait for the approval before I submit the whole thing.

[ - ] Ragnar 0 points 3.6 yearsOct 10, 2021 11:13:36 ago (+0/-0)

I’m looking forward to your final draft

[ - ] RMGoetbbels 0 points 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 16:32:12 ago (+0/-0)

And the second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, 17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark— the name of the beast or the number of its name.

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 0 points 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 16:46:58 ago (+0/-0)*

Which doesn't explain why my beliefs prohibit it. Answering these things are exceedingly easy to fuck up. "It's the mark of the beast" and "baby cells in the vaccine" doesn't work and has been thrown out before. There's a great write-up by four bishops as to why you cannot claim those kinds of things that I'll include in my full exemption post.

Further, James 4:17

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." You would have to show beyond doubt that it is indeed said mark. Since you can still buy and sell using cash and other people as proxy thus buying their service to have it delivered, it does not satisfy the requirements. It comes close, yes, but it is not. And if it WERE the mark, those people who had taken it before such knowledge would be spared punishment from God.

[ - ] La_Chalupacabra 0 points 3.6 yearsOct 10, 2021 20:31:01 ago (+0/-0)

I'm a little uncertain on the whole "the name of the beast, or the number of his name" part.
Could it be that having a waver may count as the mark since one is still willingly participating in the beast system?

[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 15:58:01 ago (+0/-0)

Well you could cite HIPAA law and say your previous vaccines are none of their business.

Just suggestions now....

“...leading question and is wholly offensive as it “
You are over-doing the outrage there.

“. As such, it is completely irrelevant ambiguous as worded “

Again, its a little to combatitive. I know you’re outraged. We are all outraged. Consider a slightly more neutral matter of fact tone here.

“Further, “the COVID-19 vaccine” is an uneducated view non-specific term which clearly and plainly says implies that all COVID vaccines are identical.”

It implies that they are all the same.

I was thinking that you were going to go with a biblical basis for a philosophical objection to all vaccines. But you seem to be going for an objection to specific vaccines due to specific technologies.

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 0 points 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 16:10:10 ago (+0/-0)

HIPPA mandates how companies handle data.

You are over-doing the outrage there.

But I AM offended.

ambiguous as worded

It's not ambiguous. I don't care if they're unhappy with that or not.

its a little to combatitive

And assuming everyone is "all in anti-vax" isn't? Assuming that it was a change in faith that caused it isn't? That groups everyone together, smart and stupid. I'm offended by it.

biblical basis for a philosophical objection to all vaccines

There is no such basis. The closest you can get is Jesus saying "only the sick need doctors." (Mark 2:17)


But you seem to be going for an objection to specific vaccines due to specific technologies.

Deny, delay, deflect. Every time. It will be months before Novavax is approved. When it's approved, we get to go through the same song and dance again.



[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 16:28:16 ago (+1/-0)

But I AM offended

I know but you don’t want to blow your load on the first question.

It's not ambiguous.

How about “not relevant to me as worded”?

And assuming everyone is "all in anti-vax" isn't?

Yeah they are fucking cunts. They deserve bullets. Maybe you could put in there :
“You are cunts that deserve bullets”. Would it make you feel better? Yes. Would it make your application more likely to succeed? No.

Matter-of-fact, neutral tone. that is my opinion.

[ - ] Yargiyankooli 0 points 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 18:05:15 ago (+1/-1)

Lol you post your little good boy script then get upset when people critique it. Why don't you just grow a pair and say you will not participate in exemptions because it is none of their damn business in the first place.

My place of work is requiring the same shit. I am ignoring their request. They can fire me if they want, because eventually, exemption or not, you will be fired for not beig vaccinated.

Also, I agree with post wall's critiques. Why not read Strunk and White's Elements of Style and learn how to write properly?

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] -1 points 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 18:16:51 ago (+0/-1)

It's a good thing you're going to get fired and the blacklisted from employment. Your level of stupidity is profound. Do not ever breed, jewfag.

[ - ] Yargiyankooli 1 point 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 18:55:12 ago (+1/-0)

It is a good thing I am a patriot exercising my rights. It is a bad thing you kowtow to authority like a boot licker bitch

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] -1 points 3.6 yearsOct 9, 2021 19:38:49 ago (+0/-1)

lulz, w/e glownigger.

[ - ] BitterVeteran 0 points 3.6 yearsOct 10, 2021 09:27:16 ago (+0/-0)

Hey dude... he's not wrong. You're kowtowing. You paint it whatever color you wish, son. But it still is the same thing.