NY is ending religious exceptions!

yksraya

Thu, Jun 13 2019, 3:58 pm

naomi2 wrote:

I think forcing parents to vaccinate is an infringement on personal freedom to begin with.
And it wasn't the anti Vax who caused this. It was everyone else who bully them mercilessly so they are forced to defend themselves publicly.
Signed, someone who vaccinates but believes in minding my own business.

Do you also mind your own business when you see kids playing with fire? It's not your kids, but your kids and other kids are standing around and can get burned. Do you say something?

amother

Royalblue

Thu, Jun 13 2019, 4:10 pm

naomi2 wrote:

Yeah, but it really isn’t just THEIR business when I have to keep my child with cancer at home because I’m too afraid of any possibility of her getting sick. Most people, thank Gd, actually care about the wellbeing of others and how their actions might affect others but sadly, I see that their are frum people who just don’t care that their decision to not vax doesn’t just affect them but others.

amother

Beige

Thu, Jun 13 2019, 5:20 pm

ddmom wrote:

I hate that they call it " religious" exemptions.
Call it whatever you want but leave religion out of it!! I wish they would ban that expression!
It gives a bad name to our religion and most anti- vaxxer certainly are against regardless of what religion they follow!!! Banging head

Exactly the opposite. The vaccines are mandatory. If your religion prohibits you from getting it - you are (were) allowed that 'out'.

It would be nice to know if any religions specifically prohibit this.

"I feel like this is harmful to my children" is not a religious position.

Maybe at someone in time someone (ie a judge) will look at this and find that practically mandatory (if you don't use the school system, its not mandatory) vaccination contrary to the Geneva convention. Until then - its required.

trixx

Thu, Jun 13 2019, 5:22 pm

naomi2 wrote:

I agree

amother [ Brown ] wrote:

Key word being genuine. The large number of anti-vaxxers are merely using the religious exemptions to bypass the laws. As it usually happens, the greedy or misguided people ruin something good for everyone.

Only because other exemptions don't exist or are hard to get. Where's the exemption for "I'm the parent I'll choose"? That should be a right.

amother

Brown

Thu, Jun 13 2019, 5:27 pm

trixx wrote:

Only because other exemptions don't exist or are hard to get. Where's the exemption for "I'm the parent I'll choose"? That should be a right.

Destroying herd immunity is not a right afforded to any person.

You have a right to choose for things that only affect you. You shouldn't have a right to choose things that have a detrimental effect on society.

ohmygosh

Thu, Jun 13 2019, 5:28 pm

NY is ending religious exemption for school. They are not forcing you to do anything. You can choose to homeschool.

The anti vaxxers ruined it for themselves by (many, not all) blatantly letting their children with measles run around and spread disease instead of isolating, with no care for other people. By sending their unvaccinated and non immune children to school even during an outbreak.

And by the way, this is not the first state to ban religious exemption. I don't know everyone is in a big uproar about it, as if it's never been done before in any state.

marina

Thu, Jun 13 2019, 5:31 pm

soap suds wrote:

It's great news for this particular instance. However, it's a dangerous precedence. If they can take away religious freedom* in this case, what would stop them from banning other religious practices "for the greater good"? Bris Milah, Shechita, where does it end?

*I know this is not a religious issue, as far as Judaism is concerned, but it is for others.

The Constitution allows the government to require people to comply with neutral laws that apply to everyone, even if that particular law violates your faith. So if your religion requires human sacrifice, we cannot allow that because it violates the general neutral law against homicide.

A law against circumcision or shechita would not be a neutral law, it would instead be understood to target a particular group and would be ruled unconstitutional.

amother

Aubergine

Thu, Jun 13 2019, 5:41 pm

Ladies. You are all ommitting the key word which is PERSONAL religious exemption. A religious right always must be personal. A personal religious belief is a shita, it's a personal stand in how I take my religion and understand it. The litvishe don't don't have the same understanding of the Torah and rulings as chassidish. Every fraction in a religion will have different stringencies and beliefs. This is dangerous territory. Because now if religious beliefs aren't personal, anything religious can be questioned due to others in our religion not having these concerns.
For example, different times of zman shabbos will not be respected etc.
Wake up ladies

soap suds

Thu, Jun 13 2019, 5:42 pm

marina wrote:

What's the difference between human sacrifice and bris milah? If you assume both to be harming the individual, albeit to different degrees, why should one ok while the other isn't? Is refusing a blood transfusion very different than human sacrifice?

marina

Thu, Jun 13 2019, 5:48 pm

soap suds wrote:

A court will examine when and why the law was enacted to sort this out. Presumably, if not snipping baby penises was important as a general principle, that law would have existed in some neutral form already. Enacting it now would be seen as targeting Jews.

Enjoy this interesting example from the 80s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....aleah

amother

Brown

Thu, Jun 13 2019, 5:48 pm

amother [ Aubergine ] wrote:

No, you need to wake up here. As ohmygosh spelled out earlier - it's only the school religious exemption that's being eliminated. You still retain every right to keep your personal religious exemption and not vaccinate your children. The only thing being lost here is the ability to send your kids to a school with other children. There's no religious law in any religion stating that your kids must be educated in a room full with other children. You can homeschool, or educate them in a virtual setting.

If this is your religion, then show some mesiras nefesh. You want your religion on your part, but the mesiras nefesh on everyone else's part.

It's your choice to make, and your consequences to bear.

amother

Babypink

Thu, Jun 13 2019, 6:05 pm

amother [ Aubergine ] wrote:

Wake up yourself.

Quit using and perverting my religion to harm others. You bet I am mad at the stupidity of the anti-vaxers. I have not heard one intelligent argument including your post.

You people are so selfish. If you wanted to quarantine yourselves instead of harming others, I could care less. Instead you create grave danger for those that are vulnerable. Please tell me where in your personal region it says to harm the community. And you do harm the community. You spread resentment for every sick person who can't go out. You spread resentment for person you injure and every person you kill. You spread resentment for the cost of treating a preventable disease. You spread antisemitism by harming others and by being ignorant and then defending your ignorance.

If my personal religion directed me to punch you for the harm you are doing, then I guess that's ok.

singleagain

Thu, Jun 13 2019, 6:17 pm

amother [ Beige ] wrote:

According to what I understand. Christian Scientists don't believe in medicine in general.. in most cases. But the do get vaccines when mandatory.

amother

Beige

Thu, Jun 13 2019, 6:30 pm

amother [ Aubergine ] wrote:

THIS is the wording of the exemption. The word PERSONAL is missing. It was never there.

This section shall not apply to children whose parent,
parents, or guardian holds genuine and sincere religious
beliefs which are contrary to the practices herein required,
and no certificate shall be required as a prerequisite to such
children being admitted or received into school or attending
school.

gold21

Thu, Jun 13 2019, 6:47 pm

ohmygosh wrote:

Yep! Great post.

Homeschooling is always an option.

Schools have rules. That's life. If your schools require you to vaccinate in order to send your child there, then vaccinate. If your schools require you to wear 6 pairs of seam stockings and a band on your shaitel, well, those are the breaks. If you can't comply, don't send there.

Amarante

Thu, Jun 13 2019, 7:28 pm

When determine whether a law violates a constitutional protection which is deemed to be a fundamental right such as religion freedom in the Bill of Rights, the Courts apply what is known as "strict scrutiny". The burden is on the government to show it has a compelling interest in the law - not the normal basis in which laws might be judged in which the Court assumes that the law is valid so long as it has some rational purpose. In other words, the burden shifts on the State to show why the law is absolutely necessary and that it is narrowly drafted to have as minimal impact on the rights as possible.

In this case, the government has a compelling interest in protecting the health and well being of all the citizens and it is narrowly drafted as it is enforcing vaccination for children who attend school.

Making polygamy illegal is one of the classic instances in which the Supreme Court found that the State had a compelling interest. A different example is that some Native Indian tribes were permitted to continue the use of peyote and other hallucinogenic illegal drugs because they were a valid part of their religious ceremonies and the State could not prove a compelling interest in banning their use among those tribes.