"Religious Freedom" = Discrimination = Hate

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 737
Topic's author
#511
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
since we are talking about legal situations and discrimination I'm not sure that is a relevant legal argument.  Can you give me some laws or cases that prove all sins must be equal to claim a religious objection?
FOR EXAMPLE, if you want a kosher meal in prison, you can't get one unless you ALSO observe the Sabbath and say your morning and evening prayers and generally FOLLOW the other rules and can demonstrate some understanding of these to a rabbi.

You can't cherry-pick just the parts you like.
Topic's author
#512
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ludofl3x
Should these religious exempted populations be forced into an isolated geography, or have their children banned from public parks and schools?
Why would they need to be isolated?

The non-vaccers CAN'T infect the vaccinated kids.
#513
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
I don't understand this question. The remedy for what?
you don't appear to want to allow a religious objection to vaccinations, correct?

if someone says religious objection, you say no, they stand on their religious objection, what then?  what do you do?  how do you remedy the situation?  what's the solution?

btw having bodily autonomy also means NOT doing something with it or having something done to it, it doesn't just apply to killing things, if you don't believe in the slogan "my body my choice" that's find but if you do it would not be accurate if you limit that choice would it?

#514
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
FOR EXAMPLE, if you want a kosher meal in prison, you can't get one unless you ALSO observe the Sabbath and say your morning and evening prayers and generally FOLLOW the other rules and can demonstrate some understanding of these to a rabbi.
always?  more than 50% of the time? what are the specifics for these conditional rules I don't know them.  show me the text.

The non-vaccers CAN'T infect the vaccinated kids.
extremely unlikely but for that I'll give you a KABOOM!

Topic's author
#515
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
New Rider versus Board of Education was a 1973 case in which three Pawnee students were placed on suspension for having long hair in braids. The Oklahoma school’s regulation which prohibited male students from wearing braids was challenged by the parents who felt that the school was violating their children’s freedom of religion. The court’s denied the parents’ claim.  

Hatch versus Goerke involved a 1974 challenge to a school’s regulation on the length of hair. The parents argued that the school’s regulations violated their traditional religious values, but the court disagreed.

Traditional Apaches believe that the only time one should cut one’s hair is when a relative dies. In 1993, the Wickiup, Arizona schools refused to allow a traditional Apache boy to attend classes be¬cause he has a long braid. Among the Akimel O’odham, people traditionally cut their hair after the death of a loved one. However, the Phoenix, Arizona school system in 1997 did not allow students from the Gila Indian community to attend school unless they cut their hair. Neither of these cases were challenged in court. [LINK]


After a string of court decisions upholding a prisoner’s rights to kosher foods, a federal judge upheld the right of a New Hampshire State Prison to deny kosher food to an Orthodox prisoner because he ostensibly ate non-kosher foods.

Kuperman’s lawyers said that the prison’s withdrawal of kosher foods from Kuperman violated his First Amendment right to practice religion. A federal magistrate in 2007 ordered the State’s prisons to provide kosher food to prisoners that request them. While not wishing to pass judgment on Kuperman, several rabbis reached by KosherToday said they could see the prison’s point of denying kosher food to someone who also eats non-kosher. [LINK]

Ok, all of that aside, apparently it used to be common for courts to deny any non-Christian a "religious exemption" and they would set a very high bar for "sincerity" and "consistency".

However, currently it seems that all of that has gone completely out the window.

Now most people can get kosher food in prison upon request, no questions asked. 

It would appear that "religious exemption" is now taken at face value and basically treated the same as "Idonwanna".
#516
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Maybe I used that argument specifically because I knew you would make the connection.

If everyone is vaccinated except those who refuse to get vaccinated, those who are vaccinated shouldn't get sick.




#517
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
the hair issue would be a non issue now a days for certain
as far as kosher goes that should not be the state's call to decide, but certainly to question, separation of church and state, but up to the rabbi to make that determination.
if there is to be freedom of religion a lot of it has to be taken at face value otherwise freedom of religion couldn't exist, but everything must be tempered as to minimize abuse.
these are not choices I would personally make but feel an obligation that we should support them because there is probably a time or times when our choices might not be agreeable but we would want support for them as well.
the strict teachings of many things are all falling by the wayside, including formality, manners, respect etc, eventually humanity will be on homogeneous bland thing with little to no difference, biological automatons as there will be little to nothing for anyone to disagree on with any real conviction or passion.  Whether that is good or bad we'll never know and it doesn't matter anyway.  So while we can we should preserve as much individualism and uniqueness as we can imo, but that must also include things we don't like and disagree with, drawing the line at bonafide harmful things like actual violence.


#518
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@3RU7AL
I am married, and at least one of us is a male with braids. 

Needless to say, I think that rule is stupid.



#519
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
So everybody is expected to recognise the fantasy realm where someone refuses to accept reality. Gay marriages exist and if a person or group claims that that isn't reality then they are living in delusion and need mental health care.
#520
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
And what of the other male?
#521
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you don't appear to want to allow a religious objection to vaccinations, correct?

if someone says religious objection, you say no, they stand on their religious objection, what then?  what do you do?  how do you remedy the situation?  what's the solution?

btw having bodily autonomy also means NOT doing something with it or having something done to it, it doesn't just apply to killing things, if you don't believe in the slogan "my body my choice" that's find but if you do it would not be accurate if you limit that choice would it?
Actually, I'm not sure you have me correctly: I am fine with religious based objections to things, even to some things I find ridiculous (like religiously objecting to proven science), on principle. THat's kind of the quandary I find myself in. If they are allowed to object and risk herd immunity, then is it then discrimination to segregate this potentially infectious population? Is that the 'remedy' to their objection? It seems in practical terms the only way to protect those who cannot be inoculated (like children less than a year old, newborns, etc) when we are a society of shared spaces and public utilities. It seems less than American to me, deciding one population of religious people can't use something like a publicly funded park because they are exercising their religious freedom, yes, to the detriment of others, but there's no provision for that in the law. Still, I feel like our first duty is to protect the most vulnerable, and in this case, it's kids under the age of 1, or kids who CAN'T get inoculated. I don't have a hard and fast view on the matter, but if you rewind to where my kids were 10 months old, you can be sure I wouldn't want them going to a school with a Hasidic kid in Brooklyn. That said, does that make me anti-Semitic? I don't think so. 

And I don't think I'm arguing explicitly that the cake maker should have to make anyone a cake, if that's what your my body my choice is referencing. His first amendment rights were upheld, I just think that it's fair play if every day, a group of whoever he won't make cakes for pickets his store. Right to assembly. I get the Brutal quandary though: standing on religious grounds, not freedom of expression grounds, means that he should have to follow all of the laws in his religion equally. 

#522
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
@3RU7AL

Maybe I used that argument specifically because I knew you would make the connection.

If everyone is vaccinated except those who refuse to get vaccinated, those who are vaccinated shouldn't get sick.

Yeah, maybe, or maybe you are just like every other Christian I've ever met: the kind that picks and chooses where and when biblical support is important. And you didn't read anything about the mechanics Roberts posted: first, it's 93% effective in its first administration, which leaves a percentage. More importantly, "the first dose at 12 to 15 months of age," which means that a child in its first year is NOT vaccinated. You can take your eight month old to the daycare, or a public park, and walk home with measles, because some kid was on the same swing two hours ago and had it. 


Topic's author
#523
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the strict teachings of many things are all falling by the wayside, including formality, manners, respect etc, eventually humanity will be on homogeneous bland thing with little to no difference, biological automatons as there will be little to nothing for anyone to disagree on with any real conviction or passion.
Ok, as another example, if someone believed their taxes were supporting an immoral war, would it be acceptable for them to refuse to pay?

And if someone said their religion required that unwed women have abortions, could conservatives reasonably object?

And if freedom of speech is sacrosanct, should someone be fired for expressing white-nationalist opinions?

I just don't think giving (almost) everyone a free-pass is a sustainable solution.
#524
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
people do and should have the right to legal protest etc, just because you exercise a freedom does not me there can't be consequences for it.

I've worked in a pediatric office for 2 1/2 years now and it's not all that uncommon for parents to wait for vaccines sometimes going years before getting the recommended or needed ones, with no real logical reason other than being dumb or lazy.
Every medication or vaccine has a potential risk, though not as big of a one as the diseases they can prevent in most cases.

Isolation for medical reasons is not discrimination.

expressing your religion is freedom of expression, I see no difference.

Now with all that said measles is certainly uncomfortable and any severe complications seems on par % wise with those who will not develop immunity from the vaccine.
and I'm sure that data is very old since the vaccine has been out for some time.  of those who have contracted it recently I have not heard of any deaths or permanent disability as a result of their infection.

what I'm getting at is there are risks to both, getting the vaccine and not getting the vaccine.  The choice should be theirs generally speaking and should not be forced upon them by people with guns (law enforcement).  Though there are and can be consequences for those choices.

When discussing this issue with my wife she informed me there are other vaccines that have religious objections as well, because they are derived or someone made with human cells.  I have not verified this or know which ones she is referring to.  The objection for some of these vaccines is because pigs are used in some way.  Most insulin is derived from pigs, though you can get actual human insulin.

Freedom is only needed to make bad, unpopular, objectionable etc decisions.  If society was more homogeneous we wouldn't have many of these issue because everyone would be the same, ironic when you think about those promoting diversity lol but I digress.
Topic's author
#525
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ludofl3x
If you refuse to get vaccines, you're refusing the remedy to measles.
How far does this reasoning go?

If I get strep or the flu, should I be able to sue the person who infected me?

Should Christian Scientists and the Amish be banned from public spaces because they don't believe in vaccines (or simply don't trust the government and or pharmaceutical corporations)?
#526
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
People have lots of reasons for not getting vaccinated.

Does your vaccine have pignparts in it? That is why Muslims and Jews refuse vaccination.


Plus, some people are convinced that they put things other than what they tell you in the vaccines. Things that are intended to effect fertility or harm you.

I think it is strange you think people should be forced to get vaccinations.


I also think it is strange that you are accusing me of selectively using biblical justification when I did not use biblical justification for anything.

Besides, you don't really know my religion anyway.


I don't think people should be forced to put anything in their body because some people are paranoid about getting a disease.



#527
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, as another example, if someone believed their taxes were supporting an immoral war, would it be acceptable for them to refuse to pay?
you'd have to assume that's what the taxes were going towards it's not a direct support imo  however you don't have to pay taxes if you don't work, it is a choice.
And if someone said their religion required that unwed women have abortions, could conservatives reasonably object?
of course life > everything else generally
And if freedom of speech is sacrosanct, should someone be fired for expressing white-nationalist opinions?
they could be, as an employee you agree to the terms and conditions of the employer by accepting the job. essentially you've waived your rights by doing so.

I just don't think giving (almost) everyone a free-pass is a sustainable solution.
I don't consider it a free pass because there can be consequences when exercising your freedoms, but it should be the individuals decision to make that choice understanding potential consequences.
there can be a price to pay for freedom, nothing is free.


#528
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
it takes a lot of faith to get vaccines if you really think about it, I sure do love irony.
#529
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Should Christian Scientists and the Amish be banned from public spaces because they don't believe in vaccines (or simply don't trust the government and or pharmaceutical corporations)?

This is exactly my question I don't have an easy answer to. All I know is that it's easy to say "no" and talk about things like "well, the percentages for infection remain low after you're vaccinated," or "but not every six month old baby will get it and they'll probably recover anyway," when it's not YOUR six month old that ends up with the measles. To Roberts' point, if you say "Well I don't believe in vaccines in spite of all the science," then you should be fine saying "and therefore I don't want to go to the public schools and will instead pay for my own schooling on top of the taxes I pay for public subsidy." To me, that's the best of many imperfect solutions. That, or Jesus can eliminate the measles through his magic powers and then we have no discussion at all :). 


#530
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
The state should not be pressuring people into public schools to begin with. It should be enabling them, not holding them back.
#531
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Snoopy
They're not pressuring people into public schools, you're free to go to any school you want, or home school. You just can't opt out of paying taxes to support public education, which is available to all, as part of trying to make all opportunities equally available (again, that's not exactly what it does, but its intent). If you don't have public schools, suddenly only people who can pay for school can go, no? Are you really arguing against the availability of public education?
#532
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
I have absolutely nothing against public education, not arguing against it at all.  When the state government takes money and dictates how people and their community account for their educational interest that is absolutely a coercive policy.  It undermines natural interest and causes dependency too.    If the people running the state want to help the poor and needy, they can do so in a manner that enables them to help themselves, not holding them back.  Now if you are assuming that I don't appropriate a program of social security in this interest, that would be without warrant.  
#533
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Snoopy
If the people running the state want to help the poor and needy, they can do so in a manner that enables them to help themselves, not holding them back.

I'm curious, can you provide an example of what this assistance would look like? What is a "manner that enables them to help themselves"?
#534
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
Social security would be personal apportionment.  At the very least, the state should apportion what has already been set aside for people interested in other options.  If a mother doesn't want her son to attend their failing state subsidized inner city school, she should not be forced to rely on it.  The funding is an issue, but we aren't going to get better education until we truly want it.

Topic's author
#535
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
Every law is basically "that is absolutely a coercive policy."

The whole point of law is that it aims to be "more fair" than no-law.

Without threat of enforcement by way of either penalty or incarceration or violence, the law is merely a toothless suggestion.
#536
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Nonsense, criminal law is not coercive in nature.  You commit the crime, and are brought to justice.  
Topic's author
#537
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
Social security would be personal apportionment.  At the very least, the state should apportion what has already been set aside for people interested in other options.
So basically an individual retirement account?
#538
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Snoopy
Social security would be personal apportionment.  At the very least, the state should apportion what has already been set aside for people interested in other options.  If a mother doesn't want her son to attend their failing state subsidized inner city school, she should not be forced to rely on it.

I'm not clear here. Social security as personal apportionment, based on what, exactly? Is it different than unemployment in that children can access it, or their parents? Funded by taxpayers that aren't the poor person? Eligible from birth? How is the "portion" any person is entitled to derived, are they all the same? And isn't that dependency on the state, too? It kind of sounds like you're talking about universal basic income, but I'd be really surprised if that's what you mean. That's why I am asking for clarification. 

What if the state subsidized inner city school ISN'T failing?  
Topic's author
#539
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
Nonsense, criminal law is not coercive in nature.  You commit the crime, and are brought to justice.  
BY FORCE.
#540
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
No I'm not talking about UBI, but allotting the funding already apportioned for education in a manner which doesn't lend to coercion from whatever interests currently preoccupy the state government, whether they lend to neglect, standardized improvement, or intrusion.  Actually, give people back the money that the state uses to artificially prop up public education, for education.