So all of the rights, and none of the responsibilities then.
Gotcha.
You’ve just defined vaccinations for the purpose of saving lives. Vaccinations do not target a religious belief, and are certainly done for a secular purpose (stopping a pandemic and preventing millions from dying.)
No it doesn’t. A religious exemption is granted. Whether there should be one or not, that’s a different issue. But one is granted.
You claim, yes, that is my religious belief. However, the government in that case sets up a board to test the consistency of your faith. It is implicit that if you take one of those other drugs, then you cannot possibly have a religious problem with taking a Covid-19 vaccine because your religious belief is internally inconsistent.
This allows the government to determine the sincerity of a religious belief based on its own determination of how logically correct it deems the belief to be. If that isn’t a frontal assault on freedom of religion, I’m not sure what is.
I do not believe in religious exemptions for a vaccine, but if one is offered as in this case, then there should not be a government religion board determining whether an individual has a good religious belief.
The alternative is that it’s not, in fact, a religious exemption; it’s an I-don’t-feel-like-it exemption. I agree that there shouldn’t be a religious exemption, but if there is, then there must be some way of restricting the exemption only to religion.
I will certainly agree with you that one should not have been offered.
For something as serious as a pandemic, you can’t handle it half-way. Other jurisdictions (not the US) that are less beholden politically to religion have made laws with no exemptions at all.
Agreed, but therein lies the problem. How can the government make such a determination? Do they hire theologians? Would it be acceptable if someone claimed that God will heal them if they get Covid-19 but a bureaucrat denies them because he or she finds out that the claimant committed adultery, which “proves” that they don’t really have faith in God because if they did, the person would follow His commandments?
Yes, one is not like the other, but once the foot is through the door, I don’t see a logical stopping point. There will be No True Scotsmanning all over the place about how claimant X is not really religious because of Y and therefore no vaccine exemption, and what government agency should be tasked with that?
Our legal system allows factfinders to determine the credibility of a person’s statements in lots of ways, all the time. Why can’t it work for statements about religious beliefs?
Because those who believe in magic do not want to be confronted by facts.
You don’t need theologians. The question is not religious people vs. the government; it’s religious people vs. people who are NOT religious but are using religion as a means of getting out of getting the vaccine. If my religious beliefs prohibit me from using any medications developed using fetal cells, why do you need a theologian to determine whether I take Tylenol? And would this theologian have to have deep knowledge of my beliefs, even if I’m the only member of my religion?
Yes, but I believe God won’t heal me if that “religious” person gives me COVID-19, and I believe God sayeth, “I gave you people a vaccine. Use it!” COVID doesn’t care what the anti-vaxxer believes. If the anti-vaxxer infects me because he refuses to vaccinate or mask up, I’m just as dead, and he is just as guilty of breaking the Fifth Commandment. According to your logic, that means he doesn’t believe in God.
[quote=“UltraVires, post:27, topic:953408”]
but a bureaucrat denies them because he or she finds out that the claimant committed adultery, which “proves” that they don’t really have faith in God because if they did, the person would follow His commandments?
This is pretty twisted and weak logic. NO religion holds that someone who commits adultery doesn’t believe in God. Any “bureaucrat” (or theologian, or theologian/bureaucrat) who’d use such an illogical test would quickly find herself on the losing side of a lawsuit. Or did you imagine all bureaucrats were not only irrational idiots but atheists? There is no logical link between sinning and “therefore you don’t believe in God.” By that test, nobody would believe in God because all humankind are sinners. Your imagined argument doesn’t work.
You’d think an attorney would know better than to use the Slippery Slope logical fallacy…
There was a time, not so long ago, when religion was a thing that required people to do stuff they didn’t always want to do, and prohibited them from doing some stuff they did. Somehow it turned into a hall pass for whatever the hell people felt like doing, or refusing. But it hasn’t always been thus, and it need not ever be thus.
What standard does someone have to meet to get a religious exemption? Prove you are a member of a religion that abhors vaccination? Tell HR that God told you not to get the shot? Simply fill out a form?
I’m talking about deciding whether someone’s stated religious beliefs is indeed their sincerely held belief. Nothing to do with confronting magic with facts.
New York also does not allow any non-medical exemptions ( although it was allowed up until 2019 or so).
It’s nothing like that - that list of other drugs would apply only to those people whose stated religious objection is that the vaccines were developed using fetal cells. If instead, they said that had a religious objection to vaccinations , then that list of drugs wouldn’t matter but maybe getting a flu shot every year would. It’s not like saying you can’t go to the Baptist church because you agree with or abide by all the church’s teachings - it’s more like telling me you can’t eat bacon because your religion doesn’t allow you to eat pork while you are eating a ham sandwich. Whatever the reason is that you don’t want the bacon, it’s not because it’s pork. And if you claim you don’t want to be vaccinated because of the fetal cell issue but plan to continue* to use the drugs on the list, your objection isn’t to the use of fetal cells.
And employers have always been able to question the sincerity of religious beliefs - they often don’t but if I claim I can’t work my normal 8-4 shift on Sundays for religious reasons, my employer is absolutely entitled to question my sincerity if I work a second job during the same hours on Sunday.
- I say “plan to continue” because it is very possible that those people had no idea that fetal cells were used in developing those drugs until they were presented with the list. Of course, that itself makes me question how important the fetal cell thing is to them since in my experience, people with true religious objections make their business to insure that they aren’t taking pills based on fetal cell research or capsules that contain gelatin made from pig skin and bones. They don’t just assume things aren’t objectionable until they find out otherwise.
Also, if a huge percentage of the workforce refuses to work on Sundays for “religious” reasons, and the Sunday shifts aren’t going to be covered, the employer is entitled to find that granting all of those requests is not a reasonable accommodation no matter how sincere the belief is.
Letting your workplace become a vector for a disease is not a reasonable accommodation, at least not in any large numbers, so it doesn’t matter how sincere people are in their belief that the vaccine is made of aborted fetuses or whatever.
If the disease wasn’t so dire or the situation differed, i’d have no problem with the Amish for having such an exemption. Nobody can really deny they don’t have a sincere belief.
Whoops. That was actually in the link I posted. Not sure how I missed that. Also West Virginia. So, 46 out of 50 states allow some sort of religious and/or philosophical exemption.
Far closer to “fill out a form.”
Everything I heard - which was quite a bit, tho some time ago and I did not conduct an intensive study - said employers were urged to err widely on the side of presuming a stated belief was sincere.
Isn’t it 44 out of 50? From your source, these states have neither religious nor philosophical exemptions:
California
Connecticut
Maine
Mississippi
New York
West Virginia