Mississippi starts allowing religious exemptions for childhood vaccinations

a reply to: AlienBorg

I am not arguing religious rights are more important than other rights but they are rights too.

You do, however, champion the idea of "Rights for me, not for thee" by supporting this ruling, though.

Religious views can be used for declining vaccines and medication or medical procedures.

Not always.

Some medications and medical procedures. The government is still allowed to force some procedure, like a blood draw for a DUI suspect. Children are taken from their homes because their parents refused them life saving medical treatment, like chemotherapy for example, regardless of their religious beliefs.
Court denies custody for parents who stopped chemo for 4-year-old son with cancer

Supreme Court Affirms Police Can Order Blood Drawn From Unconscious DUI Suspects
So much for 5th Amendment protections of unconscious individuals.
And...

The first amendment and the court rulings over the years give the legal precedence where religious views can be used to reject vaccines. Is not an appeal to authority, I am merely stating what's true and had been true for years now.

Nope.
U.S. Supreme Court Spurns Bid for Religious Opt-Out From Vaccine Rule

originally posted by: wdkirk

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: AlienBorg

A large number of people are religious and can make a claim based on their religious beliefs.

I know of a few religions that disavow certain medical intervention, like blood transfusions, but the majority of religions don't.

Nobody can check how religious you are. Say I am a Christian...

Okay, let's say that. What Christian doctrine or biblical passage forbids immunizations? Good thing Mississippi doesn't question a person's religious sincerity, because a lot of people are going to have to lie, hard, to get this exemption. As God intended, right?

In the US you can start your own religion and even get tax exemption. You can state that your religion does not allow vaccination. Freedom of religion, not just the popular ones, you can have your own religion. It cannot be infringed upon.

Unacceptable!
I shouldn't have to "start a religion" to access equal protection under the law. I shouldn't have to rely on religion at all to access my constitutional right to say "No" to an experimental vaccine.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: AlienBorg

I am not arguing religious rights are more important than other rights but they are rights too.

You do, however, champion the idea of "Rights for me, not for thee" by supporting this ruling, though.

Religious views can be used for declining vaccines and medication or medical procedures.

Not always.

Some medications and medical procedures. The government is still allowed to force some procedure, like a blood draw for a DUI suspect. Children are taken from their homes because their parents refused them life saving medical treatment, like chemotherapy for example, regardless of their religious beliefs.
Court denies custody for parents who stopped chemo for 4-year-old son with cancer

Supreme Court Affirms Police Can Order Blood Drawn From Unconscious DUI Suspects
So much for 5th Amendment protections of unconscious individuals.
And...

The first amendment and the court rulings over the years give the legal precedence where religious views can be used to reject vaccines. Is not an appeal to authority, I am merely stating what's true and had been true for years now.

Nope.
U.S. Supreme Court Spurns Bid for Religious Opt-Out From Vaccine Rule

Not at all.

If you see my posts I said rights should be for all and not only people who are religious. Btw I am not religious.

The government will find it difficult to force anything to anyone after the Covid fiasco and the religion card will now become even more powerful either you're religious or you pretend to be religious.

I support the freedom of expression and freedom of having religious views. This ruling doesn't say religious rights are more important than other rights.

If you were to take a case to the supreme court now the results will be very different from what was decided earlier (you link at the bottom of the reply).

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Some states offer "sanctuary" to illegal aliens, which is showing preferential treatment to law breakers.

And you're okay with that.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Btw I am not religious.

Pfft. Are you American?

the religion card will now become even more powerful either you're religious or you pretend to be religious.

Which is deeply disturbing. This is a power play to elevate the religious right's authority while lowering the bar to access equal protection under the law to morally bankruptcy.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: wdkirk

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: AlienBorg

A large number of people are religious and can make a claim based on their religious beliefs.

I know of a few religions that disavow certain medical intervention, like blood transfusions, but the majority of religions don't.

Nobody can check how religious you are. Say I am a Christian...

Okay, let's say that. What Christian doctrine or biblical passage forbids immunizations? Good thing Mississippi doesn't question a person's religious sincerity, because a lot of people are going to have to lie, hard, to get this exemption. As God intended, right?

In the US you can start your own religion and even get tax exemption. You can state that your religion does not allow vaccination. Freedom of religion, not just the popular ones, you can have your own religion. It cannot be infringed upon.

Unacceptable!
I shouldn't have to "start a religion" to access equal protection under the law. I shouldn't have to rely on religion at all to access my constitutional right to say "No" to an experimental vaccine.

Correct.

But nothing is perfect.

It's also unacceptable for governments to mandate, coerce and force people to get vaccinated. Religious views could be a way out of this on many cases. Personal or philosophical beliefs too could play a role.

Science and rational thinking should be used to refuse vaccines if we don't know about the nature of new experimental products/vaccines. But it seems courts protect beliefs and opinions. It doesn't matter whether your belief could be wrong

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Some states offer "sanctuary" to illegal aliens, which is showing preferential treatment to law breakers.

And you're okay with that.

Sanctuary only in the sense that state employees won't help the FEDS find you. In other words, state employees aren't allowed to do the FEDS' job. But you can still be found.

Not the kind of sanctuary the churches in Europe give to the Jews during WWII.

At any rate, what does this have to do with vaccine mandates and religious opt outs, again? Or are we peddling in whataboutism to detract from an uncomfortable truth?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: AlienBorg

Btw I am not religious.

Pfft. Are you American?

the religion card will now become even more powerful either you're religious or you pretend to be religious.

Which is deeply disturbing. This is a power play to elevate the religious right's authority while lowering the bar to access equal protection under the law to morally bankruptcy.

Yes

I don't think this is a plot to elevate religious rights. Many states if not all have provisions for religious people who want to decline/refuse vaccines or medical procedures.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Never mind...

a reply to: AlienBorg

the uk tends to hit a brick wall on one issue which is consent.. the uks nhs has always struggled to get more than 70 or 80% of flu jabs into its front line staff as even they hold to the notion that medical procedures need to have consent..

so all the fearmongering around covid has done is create mistrust and send vaccine levels plummeting..

the fearmongering around covid has managed to create the perfect storm for things that where sorted like measles where london is now at risk of a major outbreak..

at this point all gov can do remove the idea that consent is needed for medical procedure and make everything mandatory which'll just compound where they have taken themselves..

Mississippi starts allowing religious exemptions for childhood vaccinations

They should build a beautiful wall around Mississippi to keep infected people from spreading their diseases to the rest of the Nation.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: wdkirk

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: AlienBorg

A large number of people are religious and can make a claim based on their religious beliefs.

I know of a few religions that disavow certain medical intervention, like blood transfusions, but the majority of religions don't.

Nobody can check how religious you are. Say I am a Christian...

Okay, let's say that. What Christian doctrine or biblical passage forbids immunizations? Good thing Mississippi doesn't question a person's religious sincerity, because a lot of people are going to have to lie, hard, to get this exemption. As God intended, right?

In the US you can start your own religion and even get tax exemption. You can state that your religion does not allow vaccination. Freedom of religion, not just the popular ones, you can have your own religion. It cannot be infringed upon.

Unacceptable!
I shouldn't have to "start a religion" to access equal protection under the law. I shouldn't have to rely on religion at all to access my constitutional right to say "No" to an experimental vaccine.

in the uk this topic is framed as consent it may have made covid vaccines for kids harder, and its put london on measles alert over the reduction in mmr jabs but consent has be the cornerstone of all health care.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Some states offer "sanctuary" to illegal aliens, which is showing preferential treatment to law breakers.

Exactly - and those same illegals are busily spreading their diseases to American citizens.

"Biden’s open borders are bringing contagious diseases to your neighborhood"

"New York City’s health commissioner announced last week that the influx of migrants from the southern border — more than 50,000 to New York City alone in the past year — is delivering contagious diseases, including tuberculosis and polio, to our neighborhoods.

The same disease threats are also endangering other migrant destinations, including California, Texas and Florida.

In a letter to physicians and health-care administrators citywide, Commissioner Ashwin Vasan explained, “Many people who recently arrived in NYC have lived in or traveled through countries with high rates of TB.”

nypost.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Some states offer "sanctuary" to illegal aliens, which is showing preferential treatment to law breakers.

And you're okay with that.

Sanctuary only in the sense that state employees won't help the FEDS find you. In other words, state employees aren't allowed to do the FEDS' job. But you can still be found.

Not the kind of sanctuary the churches in Europe give to the Jews during WWII.

At any rate, what does this have to do with vaccine mandates and religious opt outs, again? Or are we peddling in whataboutism to detract from an uncomfortable truth?

Nope, pointing out glaring hypocrisy.

If Pedro El Guapo breaks the law, he gets a pass.

I don't.

Hell, California is passing or has passed a law ordering judges to consider race before passing down sentences. Judicial reparations.

You're bent because people get a religious exemption, yet people are getting exemptions based on race, and even legal status!

originally posted by: nickyw
a reply to: AlienBorg

the uk tends to hit a brick wall on one issue which is consent.. the uks nhs has always struggled to get more than 70 or 80% of flu jabs into its front line staff as even they hold to the notion that medical procedures need to have consent..

so all the fearmongering around covid has done is create mistrust and send vaccine levels plummeting..

the fearmongering around covid has managed to create the perfect storm for things that where sorted like measles where london is now at risk of a major outbreak..

at this point all gov can do remove the idea that consent is needed for medical procedure and make everything mandatory which'll just compound where they have taken themselves..

Based.

a reply to: DBCowboy

If Pedro El Guapo breaks the law, he gets a pass.

I don't.

No Mr Guapo doesn't get a pass if he breaks the law in California. California prisons don't have to continue to house, feed and care for Mr Guapo after he's served his time for the crimes he committed, if the FEDS don't show up to take him in custody and then straight to deportation court. Especially, since the FEDS were notified of the Mr Guapo's illegal status and his date of release, way in advance. If the FEDS don't show up, in California, Mr Guapo goes free, and the FEDS will have to track him down through his parole officer, or whatever.

In California, Mr Guapo's kids didn't have to prove their citizenship to go to public school, because it would be really cruel to have laws that kept children in hiding like Anne Frank, or illegally working in some sewing factory basement, or worse, here in the USA.

You're bent because people get a religious exemption, yet people are getting exemptions based on race, and even legal status!

No they don't.

Did you know that sentencing guidelines have been based on zip codes? So, criminals coming from black neighborhoods got harsher sentences than their cohorts who hail from better neighborhoods?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You obviously don't live in a blue state.

Illegals get a pass for practically everything.

But back on topic, if you're going to get upset over lawmakers passing laws giving "preferential treatment" for specific groups, then you should be against any and all laws that give "preferential treatment" to any group.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
Like all the Amish who aren't sick?

Pure big pharma propaganda.

You must not live near any Amish communities. Many of them do vaccinate their children, and they most certainly get sick and utilize modern medicine.

The Amish didn't used to vaccinate. They only recently started I believe in the last decade or two and they pick and choose what they want to inject. They don't follow the vaccine schedule that non-Amish children do. They have the OPTION to vaccinate and every sect/region has independent choices.

Here is a recent study:

Objectives: The Holmes County Amish have low vaccination rates, an increasingly diverse population, and have an increased incidence of certain inherited diseases. The objectives were to evaluate; the rate and influences of vaccine hesitancy compared to a decade ago, vaccination patterns between Amish affiliations, vaccine practices of Amish special needs children, and the Amish's acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Study design: In April of 2020, a survey assessing vaccination patterns and beliefs were mailed to 1000 Amish families, including ultra-conservative Amish sects and special needs families.

Results: The response rate was 39%. Among 391 respondents, 59% did not vaccinate their children, compared to only 14% that refused all vaccinations reported by Wenger et al in the same community only a decade ago. The ultra-conservative Amish rejected vaccines more often. Amish special needs children were more likely to receive vaccines than healthy Amish children. 75% responded they would reject a COVID-19 vaccine. Fear of adverse effects was the most common reason to reject vaccines. Families that accepted vaccines were more likely to cite a healthcare worker as the primary influence to vaccinate. Wives were more likely to cite their spouse as the primary influence to vaccinate. Families that rejected vaccines were more likely to state their bishop was the most influential person on vaccination.

Conclusion: The Holmes County Amish have decreasing vaccine acceptance. Efforts to improve vaccination will require a targeted focus on the primary influences and beliefs of sub-populations within the Amish. Physician advocacy, peer mentorship, father-directed education, and close partnership with Church leadership will be needed to limit vaccine-preventable disease. The Amish may be at risk for low uptake of a COVID-19 vaccine.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

That's only one example obviously and there are many threads on ATS about the Amish and vaccines. My point is that they're flexible in their position and not ruled by government mandates. But overall, they still lean predominately towards NOT vaccinating, overall.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You obviously don't live in a blue state.

Illegals get a pass for practically everything.

But back on topic, if you're going to get upset over lawmakers passing laws giving "preferential treatment" for specific groups, then you should be against any and all laws that give "preferential treatment" to any group.

You are correct.
NJ is a 'sanctuary state' and what you are saying is true.
And, yes, laws should be for anyone residing here, preferential treatment is ridiculous.

a reply to: DBCowboy

You obviously don't live in a blue state.

I live in California. You? You're in Oregan, right?

Illegals get a pass for practically everything.

Examples please.