Religious exemption valid?

[Spongebob]

There's an interesting legal battle beginning to form.  Many anti-vaxxers are looking to use a religious exemption to the covid vaccine.  Problem is, no major organized religion objects to the covid vaccines.  So we will have individuals claiming they should receive a religious exemption when their own church leaders are vaccinated and not claiming that this vaccination contradicts their religion.  In some cases the claimants may be required to demonstrate the sincerity of their religious beliefs and an ongoing history of vaccine objection.  To me this seems to pose the very sort of question that so many believers use against atheists who used to be Christians, claiming we were never "real" Christians because we didn't really believe.  I think its a fascinating situation to develop and this kind of thing just reinforces the fact to me that religion is absolute nonsense because people basically just want what they want and will do whatever they have to in order to get it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Religious objections are protected, but not a given. It would actually be a requirement to demonstrate that their religious beliefs are genuine and doing so would imply that they had a history of vaccine objection if there was some legally actionable conflict - which..just not taking the vaccine...isn't. No one has to say they have a religious objection if they don't want to get jabbed.

End of the day, I think this is going to be another self inflicted wound for religion in the us. I don't think that the fundies are going to be happy until they've reduced their own beliefs to puerile idiocy. They think that's owning other people, apparently - the argument being that they have gamed a liberal concern over religious freedoms (which they absolutely do not share in any way shape or form) and backed blue hypocritics/virtue signaling baby eaters into a wall of their own devising. All of it, falling on their own swords with regards to a disease that's killing them, not the hated other.

[brewer]

Religious objection to vaccination should come with consequences in societies, and if they are sincere in their belief they will be willing to accept those consequences.

But we all know they won't.

[The Grand Nudger]

The only consequences political religiosity concerns itself with are those consequences it would impose on others.

[Angrboda]

I don't know what to think about religious exemptions. Having been religious, I understand why religious beliefs are granted privilege that other beliefs are not. I think that's right, but I'm not sure that I could elucidate the why I think that or justify it. The problem is that what does count as religion, and what type of religious beliefs and acts should be protected is so nebulously defined that it's open to abuse. In the same vein I'm for the tax exemption of churches, as they are too analogous to other 501(c)3 organizations. We need exemptions for conscientious exemption, whether against baking cakes or vaccines or fighting in wars. But they need to be carefully circumscribed, and it's very difficult to do that.

[zwanzig]

This is one of those areas where I don't think religious thinking should be respected. It's not based on the reality the rest of us are dealing with and there are actual lives at risk. You don't get to have your unreasonable delusions coddled while people might suffer from your choices. 

But I don't know what the effects might be of saying "never" to religious exemptions for anything. The more secular the conversation about rights is, the better for all, in my opinion.

[The Grand Nudger]

So long as it neither picks my pocket or breaks my legs. Religious exemptions aren't (or aren't currently seen to be) universally valid in all applications. Then again, we've got a heap of black robed mystics on the bench..so that can change quick.

If you show up in court asserting that your religion demanded you sacrifice a virgin girl to a volcano - the court isn't even going to consider whether that belief is genuine because it doesn't matter if it is. May as well proceed directly to jail. You do have to wonder..if the judge and the jury were all members of the volcano cult - if the process and outcome would be different. Maybe he'd get a fine, paid to her father or oldest brother or pimp or whatever?

[Spongebob]

I tend toward limiting religious exemptions to very specific things that are only clearly identified as an intrusion on their religious beliefs. I think religious pacifism is a good example, but only a few religions take this position. Also, only a few religions object to modern medical technology. JW is one and there's a long history on record for that. No mainstream Christian religion that I am aware of has ever objected to common medical practices like vaccination or blood transfusions or such with the single exception being abortion. So if you are any form of Christian you should be exempt from the exemption in my opinion. Has any Baptist or Assembly of God church objected to vaccinations in the past? Did they object to the polio vaccine? Small pox? Do they object to Viagra? How about drugs to treat Alzheimer's? Those drugs impact a person's mental disposition, which could affect their religious beliefs.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

As TGN points out, the validity of any religious exemption is largely dependent on the religious leanings of the judge(s) who get to decide on its validity. It was ever thus.

Boru

[Spongebob]

As TGN points out, the validity of any religious exemption is largely dependent on the religious leanings of the judge(s) who get to decide on its validity. It was ever thus.

Boru

That is likely true and it's an egregious error as justice is supposed to be blind.  Personal bias is not intended to weigh in a judges decision.