Beginning of the end for religious exemption of vaccine mandates?
September 16, 2021 9:45 PM Subscribe
A hospital system in Arkansas wants to make sure anyone claiming religious exemption to vaccines is sincere, by also making them attest, acknowledge, and affirm that they object to the use of fetal cell lines in testing and development of not just vaccines, but some of the most common OTC medicines such as Tylenol, Tums, Preparation H, Prilosec, Zoloft, Claritin, Sudafed, Benadryl, Motrin, Lipitor... all in all about 30 or so, which is hardly a complete list of OTC medicine that used such cell lines.
The president of the Health Group saw an uptick in religious exemptions for the COVID vaccine that was WAY over the typical seasonal request over the flu vaccine.
It is worth pointing out that NO major religious denomination opposes vaccination, muchless COVID vaccination. The Pope had just spoken from the Papal Plane that "... humanity has a history of friendship with vaccines", but acknowledges that even within the Vatican there are a few holdouts, including a Cardinal... who came down with COVID.
UC Hastings Law Professor Dorit Reiss had an article in Hastings Law Journal that claimed, with evidence, that religious exemption is prone to abuse and a majority of people's religions do NOT oppose vaccination (as outlined above).
A religious liberty expert weighed in, that religious exemption to vaccine mandate is NOT supported by Federal law or the Constitution, and if the Federal government want to take it away they can easily do so.
Is Arkansas example the beginning of the end for religious exemptions?
The president of the Health Group saw an uptick in religious exemptions for the COVID vaccine that was WAY over the typical seasonal request over the flu vaccine.
It is worth pointing out that NO major religious denomination opposes vaccination, muchless COVID vaccination. The Pope had just spoken from the Papal Plane that "... humanity has a history of friendship with vaccines", but acknowledges that even within the Vatican there are a few holdouts, including a Cardinal... who came down with COVID.
UC Hastings Law Professor Dorit Reiss had an article in Hastings Law Journal that claimed, with evidence, that religious exemption is prone to abuse and a majority of people's religions do NOT oppose vaccination (as outlined above).
A religious liberty expert weighed in, that religious exemption to vaccine mandate is NOT supported by Federal law or the Constitution, and if the Federal government want to take it away they can easily do so.
Is Arkansas example the beginning of the end for religious exemptions?
Is Arkansas example the beginning of the end for religious exemptions?
Paging Betteridge on the courtesy phone.
posted by Special Agent Dale Cooper at 10:19 PM on September 16, 2021 [28 favorites]
Paging Betteridge on the courtesy phone.
posted by Special Agent Dale Cooper at 10:19 PM on September 16, 2021 [28 favorites]
With this Court? I'm not betting on it.
Seriously. This. The court fast-tracked a bunch of executions with very real issues under Trump. The only stays they have granted have been religious liberty questions. It's the only thing the majority takes seriously right now.
posted by Garm at 10:23 PM on September 16, 2021 [16 favorites]
Seriously. This. The court fast-tracked a bunch of executions with very real issues under Trump. The only stays they have granted have been religious liberty questions. It's the only thing the majority takes seriously right now.
posted by Garm at 10:23 PM on September 16, 2021 [16 favorites]
Given the Hobby Lobby decision, and some gay marriage thing, I can't remember maybe the wedding cake?.. Oh, and the gay adoption thing also... I don't see any religious exemption from anything being denied, really.
posted by hippybear at 10:28 PM on September 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 10:28 PM on September 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
But isn't the Pfizer developed with bacterial soup, not fetal cell lines?
posted by freethefeet at 10:30 PM on September 16, 2021
posted by freethefeet at 10:30 PM on September 16, 2021
Good thing Congress has the power to amend RFRA to not cover vaccine mandates or at least consequences of choosing to go unvaccinated, then.
posted by wierdo at 10:32 PM on September 16, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by wierdo at 10:32 PM on September 16, 2021 [1 favorite]
It's as the hospital thinks that people are consistent about their religious beliefs, or that the religions themselves are consistent, or that the logic they use is based on what some hospital director heard on TV. I've been vaccinated; I think it was the only moral choice; but I could write a well-sourced argument demonstrating that vaccination is forbidden by Jewish law as easily as clicking my fingers. And that's for a religion that doesn't have clerics who claim to talk to God, and consequently can't just say that God told them He doesn't trust mRNA vaccines. .
This is a lame, stupid argument, one that is worse than saying that vaccine mandates trump freedom of religion. At least that's honest, and won't force the hospital administration into an intellectual challenge they're not equipped to meet.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:32 PM on September 16, 2021 [14 favorites]
This is a lame, stupid argument, one that is worse than saying that vaccine mandates trump freedom of religion. At least that's honest, and won't force the hospital administration into an intellectual challenge they're not equipped to meet.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:32 PM on September 16, 2021 [14 favorites]
Religious exemptions make it easy for the usual garbage people to do an end run around the system, like they always do. The exemptions need to be revoked. The vaccine is free, easy to get, and safe. It protects people. This bullshit needs to stop, now.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:50 PM on September 16, 2021 [57 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:50 PM on September 16, 2021 [57 favorites]
but some of the most common OTC medicines such as Tylenol, Tums, Preparation H, Prilosec, Zoloft, Claritin, Sudafed, Benadryl, Motrin, Lipitor... all in all about 30 or so, which is hardly a complete list of OTC medicine that used such cell lines.
This is nonsense.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:06 PM on September 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
This is nonsense.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:06 PM on September 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
Why on earth would they think that someone willing to lie to get a religious exemption would be shamed into telling the truth because of Preparation H?
I feel the frustration, but like all the other honor system approaches to the pandemic, this is worth less than the paper it's written on.
posted by basalganglia at 11:11 PM on September 16, 2021 [18 favorites]
I feel the frustration, but like all the other honor system approaches to the pandemic, this is worth less than the paper it's written on.
posted by basalganglia at 11:11 PM on September 16, 2021 [18 favorites]
I would think that the state would be violating religious liberty and the establishment clause if it lacked vaccine mandates.
Should we start calling people who are terminated by covid malice "abortions' ? So that the evangelicals (and the supreme court) understand?
posted by eustatic at 11:28 PM on September 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
Should we start calling people who are terminated by covid malice "abortions' ? So that the evangelicals (and the supreme court) understand?
posted by eustatic at 11:28 PM on September 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
The idea is to force people to actually think critically about what they are saying/professing to believe. Very few evangelicals, even the ones who legitimately object to taking medications that use fetal cell lines in the production process, give half a shit about the use of them in testing.
How well it will work I can't say, but given the religious makeup of the area, I'm not going to fault a group of people who are likely of said religion for giving it their best shot. They don't really give a shit whether or not the heathens think they're being hypocritical, but they do tend to care about what other people in their church think of them.
posted by wierdo at 11:38 PM on September 16, 2021 [18 favorites]
How well it will work I can't say, but given the religious makeup of the area, I'm not going to fault a group of people who are likely of said religion for giving it their best shot. They don't really give a shit whether or not the heathens think they're being hypocritical, but they do tend to care about what other people in their church think of them.
posted by wierdo at 11:38 PM on September 16, 2021 [18 favorites]
It's like indulgences all over again.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 1:02 AM on September 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 1:02 AM on September 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
But isn't the Pfizer developed with bacterial soup, not fetal cell lines?
No fetal cells are used in development. Some of the testing processes use them, however.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 1:04 AM on September 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
No fetal cells are used in development. Some of the testing processes use them, however.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 1:04 AM on September 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
The graveyard is full of people that had faith for a shield.
posted by adept256 at 2:52 AM on September 17, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by adept256 at 2:52 AM on September 17, 2021 [6 favorites]
Someone out there is reading this and seeing a business opportunity. Coming soon to your local Christian bookstore: Fetal-cell-free Pepto-Bismol.
("You're not making Christianity better. You're making medicine worse.")
posted by clawsoon at 3:55 AM on September 17, 2021 [20 favorites]
("You're not making Christianity better. You're making medicine worse.")
posted by clawsoon at 3:55 AM on September 17, 2021 [20 favorites]
The graveyard is full of people that had faith for a shield.
I'm reminded of all the people I saw wearing shirts with biblical quotes about the lord giving them strength and such at the start of the Chicago marathon. I didn't see any of them after the first mile and I am not fast. Religious exceptions can get you past rules but not past some harsh physical realities.
posted by srboisvert at 4:01 AM on September 17, 2021 [16 favorites]
I'm reminded of all the people I saw wearing shirts with biblical quotes about the lord giving them strength and such at the start of the Chicago marathon. I didn't see any of them after the first mile and I am not fast. Religious exceptions can get you past rules but not past some harsh physical realities.
posted by srboisvert at 4:01 AM on September 17, 2021 [16 favorites]
" a majority of people's religions do NOT oppose vaccination (as outlined above)."
Well, yeah, the VAST majority of Americans' stated religions don't oppose vaccination. But that's not actually how religious exemptions work in the United States; courts typically DO NOT inquire into a) the actual beliefs of a particular religion; b) how closely any individual's beliefs conform to the faith they claim; or c) how closely either of those things is connected to reality. It's enough that the belief is "sincere."
I mean they're obviously abused, and at this point are like 90% political exemptions, not "religious" exemptions. But the abuse isn't about "this isn't what people's claimed religions actually teach," it's about none of these people being sincere about avoiding vaccines generally or medicines generally or "putting things in their body" generally. It's just culture-war stuff.
And religious exemption law has been heading the way of so much else to do with the evangelical movement -- they want "freedom" but without any consequences. The Amish get to avoid certain taxes they religiously object to by never taking any of the benefits that go with those taxes. "You are free to reject vaccines, but you can't go to school/work/concerts/restaurants anymore and must wear a mask in public" is a perfectly cromulent religious exemption stance. "You are free to reject vaccines, AND have the right not to have it impact your life in any way" is right-wing nonsense.
("You're not making Christianity better. You're making medicine worse.")
Yesssssss, best Hank Hill quote.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:04 AM on September 17, 2021 [70 favorites]
Well, yeah, the VAST majority of Americans' stated religions don't oppose vaccination. But that's not actually how religious exemptions work in the United States; courts typically DO NOT inquire into a) the actual beliefs of a particular religion; b) how closely any individual's beliefs conform to the faith they claim; or c) how closely either of those things is connected to reality. It's enough that the belief is "sincere."
I mean they're obviously abused, and at this point are like 90% political exemptions, not "religious" exemptions. But the abuse isn't about "this isn't what people's claimed religions actually teach," it's about none of these people being sincere about avoiding vaccines generally or medicines generally or "putting things in their body" generally. It's just culture-war stuff.
And religious exemption law has been heading the way of so much else to do with the evangelical movement -- they want "freedom" but without any consequences. The Amish get to avoid certain taxes they religiously object to by never taking any of the benefits that go with those taxes. "You are free to reject vaccines, but you can't go to school/work/concerts/restaurants anymore and must wear a mask in public" is a perfectly cromulent religious exemption stance. "You are free to reject vaccines, AND have the right not to have it impact your life in any way" is right-wing nonsense.
("You're not making Christianity better. You're making medicine worse.")
Yesssssss, best Hank Hill quote.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:04 AM on September 17, 2021 [70 favorites]
It's like indulgences all over again.
Eh, maybe closer to simony.
posted by jquinby at 5:25 AM on September 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
Eh, maybe closer to simony.
posted by jquinby at 5:25 AM on September 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
If your religion prohibits you from doing something, OK - but then you need to accept that you don't get to do the other things that are offshoots of the first thing. You don't believe in vaccines? OK, then you don't get to practice medicine. Your religion means you won't serve gay customers? OK, then you don't get a business license. Your religion forbids drinking or handling alcohol? Fine - but you can't be a bartender, or waitstaff or grocer or whatever.
If your beliefs are so deeply held that you cannot do X then you have to accept that not being able to do Y is a consequence.
posted by jzb at 5:28 AM on September 17, 2021 [32 favorites]
If your beliefs are so deeply held that you cannot do X then you have to accept that not being able to do Y is a consequence.
posted by jzb at 5:28 AM on September 17, 2021 [32 favorites]
Good thing Congress has the power to amend RFRA to not cover vaccine mandates or at least consequences of choosing to go unvaccinated, then.
Legislation isn't allowed to violate whatever the Supreme Court (and this Supreme Court) decides the Constitution means. Or what the circuit courts hold, within their jurisdictions, if SCOTUS doesn't take up a case. RFRA has been a battleground since its inception, and has spawned a line of cases that was ahead of the pack in illustrating the Court's increasing partisanship and ideologically driven inconsistency.
And though it's obviously intellectually dishonest, abrogating bodily autonomy based on claimed religious beliefs to compel vaccination will be used to attack the privacy (as autonomy) rationale in Roe. In the public sphere, if not in court (but probably also in court, given the lack of any filter on arguments conservative lawyers are willing to advance these days).
right-wing nonsense
Christian Dominionism may be nonsense, but from the perspective of someone entirely outside of Christian popular culture it has become one of the biggest forces in the present culture wars.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:32 AM on September 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
Legislation isn't allowed to violate whatever the Supreme Court (and this Supreme Court) decides the Constitution means. Or what the circuit courts hold, within their jurisdictions, if SCOTUS doesn't take up a case. RFRA has been a battleground since its inception, and has spawned a line of cases that was ahead of the pack in illustrating the Court's increasing partisanship and ideologically driven inconsistency.
And though it's obviously intellectually dishonest, abrogating bodily autonomy based on claimed religious beliefs to compel vaccination will be used to attack the privacy (as autonomy) rationale in Roe. In the public sphere, if not in court (but probably also in court, given the lack of any filter on arguments conservative lawyers are willing to advance these days).
right-wing nonsense
Christian Dominionism may be nonsense, but from the perspective of someone entirely outside of Christian popular culture it has become one of the biggest forces in the present culture wars.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:32 AM on September 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
;courts typically DO NOT inquire into a) the actual beliefs of a particular religion; b) how closely any individual's beliefs conform to the faith they claim; or c) how closely either of those things is connected to reality. It's enough that the belief is "sincere."
It seems worth noting that this is the argument that protects the rights of non-religous conscientious objectors. (I don't know if it predates US v Seeger, but this is the standard employed there.)
posted by hoyland at 5:48 AM on September 17, 2021 [6 favorites]
It seems worth noting that this is the argument that protects the rights of non-religous conscientious objectors. (I don't know if it predates US v Seeger, but this is the standard employed there.)
posted by hoyland at 5:48 AM on September 17, 2021 [6 favorites]
The graveyard is full of people that had faith for a shield.
More to the point, the ICUs are full of them. People are already dying of non-Covid causes (heart attacks, gallstone pancreatitis) who could have been saved if right wing wackos weren't choking the health care system for no good reason.
Treating these loons with kid gloves is killing people. We need to start acting accordingly.
posted by Naberius at 6:05 AM on September 17, 2021 [25 favorites]
More to the point, the ICUs are full of them. People are already dying of non-Covid causes (heart attacks, gallstone pancreatitis) who could have been saved if right wing wackos weren't choking the health care system for no good reason.
Treating these loons with kid gloves is killing people. We need to start acting accordingly.
posted by Naberius at 6:05 AM on September 17, 2021 [25 favorites]
Maybe this works as a persuasion technique, but it won’t hold up to any legal challenge. As Eyebrows said above, the religious belief need only be sincere.
There’s nothing in the Constitution saying that the exercise of freedom of religion needs to be logically consistent.
posted by Capt. Renault at 6:07 AM on September 17, 2021 [6 favorites]
There’s nothing in the Constitution saying that the exercise of freedom of religion needs to be logically consistent.
posted by Capt. Renault at 6:07 AM on September 17, 2021 [6 favorites]
It seems worth noting that this is the argument that protects the rights of non-religous conscientious objectors. (I don't know if it predates US v Seeger, but this is the standard employed there.)
A useful related case to read is Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, where a Santeira church successfully challenged the constitutionality of a city ordinance that prohibited animal sacrifice, which would mean they could not carry out their faith's rituals.
The Supreme Court found in part that “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection. "
I am not commenting on the spectacle of people suddenly" discovering" their faiths prohibit certain types of vaccinations. And I suppose you can and should argue the societal health needs to contain COVID should override these beliefs. But I put this out there to back up the point that historically, government and courts have been very hesitant to wade into judging the consistency or acceptability of religious beliefs.
posted by fortitude25 at 6:11 AM on September 17, 2021 [9 favorites]
A useful related case to read is Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, where a Santeira church successfully challenged the constitutionality of a city ordinance that prohibited animal sacrifice, which would mean they could not carry out their faith's rituals.
The Supreme Court found in part that “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection. "
I am not commenting on the spectacle of people suddenly" discovering" their faiths prohibit certain types of vaccinations. And I suppose you can and should argue the societal health needs to contain COVID should override these beliefs. But I put this out there to back up the point that historically, government and courts have been very hesitant to wade into judging the consistency or acceptability of religious beliefs.
posted by fortitude25 at 6:11 AM on September 17, 2021 [9 favorites]
Well - I actually have a religious vaccine excemption now!
From the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster", it ensures that I am excempt from working with unvaccinated people in my workplace. You can make one here...
(oooh... they have an ordination package... I know what I want for xmas or my birthday...)
posted by rozcakj at 6:15 AM on September 17, 2021 [13 favorites]
From the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster", it ensures that I am excempt from working with unvaccinated people in my workplace. You can make one here...
(oooh... they have an ordination package... I know what I want for xmas or my birthday...)
posted by rozcakj at 6:15 AM on September 17, 2021 [13 favorites]
but some of the most common OTC medicines such as Tylenol, Tums, Preparation H, Prilosec, Zoloft, Claritin, Sudafed, Benadryl, Motrin, Lipitor... all in all about 30 or so, which is hardly a complete list of OTC medicine that used such cell lines.
This is nonsense.
Embryonic cell lines are used in in vitro toxicity assays, so maybe not nonsense.
posted by waving at 6:19 AM on September 17, 2021 [25 favorites]
If your religion prohibits you from doing something, OK - but then you need to accept that you don't get to do the other things that are offshoots of the first thing
Exactly - one could look at the Amish and Menonite communities for examples of this. But - then, there are always workarounds - they can hire non-members to do work or provide services for them (i.e. website hosting). Or - for example - the Eruv - there is always some wiggle-room.
posted by rozcakj at 6:20 AM on September 17, 2021
Exactly - one could look at the Amish and Menonite communities for examples of this. But - then, there are always workarounds - they can hire non-members to do work or provide services for them (i.e. website hosting). Or - for example - the Eruv - there is always some wiggle-room.
posted by rozcakj at 6:20 AM on September 17, 2021
It's enough that the belief is "sincere."
The labors of Hercules didn't involve as much heavy-lifting as those quotation marks...
and at this point are like 90% political exemptions, not "religious" exemptions
Oh, it's a much-higher sigma value than that. The entire idea of such exemptions had baked in at least 5-nines levels of abuse, very much intentionally as a feature, from the start.
posted by mystyk at 6:37 AM on September 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
The labors of Hercules didn't involve as much heavy-lifting as those quotation marks...
and at this point are like 90% political exemptions, not "religious" exemptions
Oh, it's a much-higher sigma value than that. The entire idea of such exemptions had baked in at least 5-nines levels of abuse, very much intentionally as a feature, from the start.
posted by mystyk at 6:37 AM on September 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
The graveyard is full of people that had faith for a shield.
To be Scrupulously Fair, those without faith for a shield inevitably wind up there also.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 6:59 AM on September 17, 2021 [8 favorites]
To be Scrupulously Fair, those without faith for a shield inevitably wind up there also.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 6:59 AM on September 17, 2021 [8 favorites]
Then the devil took him to the holy city and made him stand on the parapet of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down into this vat of Covid viruses. For it is written: He will command his angels concerning you and with their hands they will support you lest you get infected and end up in the ICU.”posted by clawsoon at 7:16 AM on September 17, 2021 [18 favorites]
Jesus answered him, “Again it is written, you shall not put the Lord your God to the test.”
Don't you love selective interpretation of the Bible?
That Jesus 'quote' above pretty much puts the kibosh on Thoughts and Prayers, if you look at it like that. "Don't test me," says God. "Choose to do (or not do) whatever stupid shit floats your boat, but don't turn it into a test of God's powers. That BS is on your dumb ass."
"NOPE," say the idiots. "That's not how I read it! I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT BLOOD OF THE ANOINTING BLAH BLAH! KTHXGOD!"
posted by I_Love_Bananas at 7:36 AM on September 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
That Jesus 'quote' above pretty much puts the kibosh on Thoughts and Prayers, if you look at it like that. "Don't test me," says God. "Choose to do (or not do) whatever stupid shit floats your boat, but don't turn it into a test of God's powers. That BS is on your dumb ass."
"NOPE," say the idiots. "That's not how I read it! I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT BLOOD OF THE ANOINTING BLAH BLAH! KTHXGOD!"
posted by I_Love_Bananas at 7:36 AM on September 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
(It looks like the Amish do pay taxes, they just don't usually pay into social security. I just checked because I would very much like to not pay into the US military and police systems.)
posted by aniola at 8:26 AM on September 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by aniola at 8:26 AM on September 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
isn't the Pfizer developed with bacterial soup, not fetal cell lines?
FAKE STEWS
posted by flabdablet at 8:30 AM on September 17, 2021 [8 favorites]
FAKE STEWS
posted by flabdablet at 8:30 AM on September 17, 2021 [8 favorites]
More to the point, the ICUs are full of them. People are already dying of non-Covid causes
At some point, (very soon) a vaccine card should be required for entry into a hospital. Don't believe in vaccines? Let the the good folks in your facebook group pray for you outside the quarantine barricade around your house.
posted by sammyo at 8:31 AM on September 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
At some point, (very soon) a vaccine card should be required for entry into a hospital. Don't believe in vaccines? Let the the good folks in your facebook group pray for you outside the quarantine barricade around your house.
posted by sammyo at 8:31 AM on September 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
Clearly, religious exemption is being used as a weapon of the right, to do whatever it is they are trying to do to the people in this country, and others. My question is, can the left also use it as a weapon against the right? As aniola says above, what about not paying taxes to support the military and police? Weapons in general are bad. But… is there some reductio ad absurdum position about religious exemption that could finally push it over and stop all this fatal nonsense?
posted by njohnson23 at 8:41 AM on September 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 8:41 AM on September 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
Yeah no.
I'd love to have that One Weird Trick that makes anti-vax plague rats do the right thing and get vaccinated.
This ain't it.
If there is going to be a religious exemption then it cannot be the person's religion as defined by anyone else. It must exempt people based on how they define their religion no matter how illogical, inconsistent, silly, or outright contradictory. Anything else puts the government in the position of deciding which religions are real and which aren't and that's not going to fly.
If this even got to the Supremes it'd be a 9-0 decision against the hospital and much as I hate it they'd be right.
Which brings us into the question of whether there should be a religious exemption, or any non-medical exemption, for vaccines at all.
And there we're torn between two important principles and there's bad things no matter which way we decide.
"Your bodily autonomy must be violated for the good of society" is a really terrible position. And what happens when the anti-science loons get power again? Now LGBT conversion therapy is mandated "for the good of society".
"You are allowed to be a plague rat and kill people by spreading the plague" is a really terrible position. It's bad now, but what happens when HerpEboSiphAIDS starts going pneumatic and has a 100% mortality rate? Should respect for bodily autonomy be a suicide pact?
I have no good answer. I wish I did. Either option seems terrible and both have downsides so big that doing nothing is unacceptable too.
posted by sotonohito at 8:43 AM on September 17, 2021 [17 favorites]
I'd love to have that One Weird Trick that makes anti-vax plague rats do the right thing and get vaccinated.
This ain't it.
If there is going to be a religious exemption then it cannot be the person's religion as defined by anyone else. It must exempt people based on how they define their religion no matter how illogical, inconsistent, silly, or outright contradictory. Anything else puts the government in the position of deciding which religions are real and which aren't and that's not going to fly.
If this even got to the Supremes it'd be a 9-0 decision against the hospital and much as I hate it they'd be right.
Which brings us into the question of whether there should be a religious exemption, or any non-medical exemption, for vaccines at all.
And there we're torn between two important principles and there's bad things no matter which way we decide.
"Your bodily autonomy must be violated for the good of society" is a really terrible position. And what happens when the anti-science loons get power again? Now LGBT conversion therapy is mandated "for the good of society".
"You are allowed to be a plague rat and kill people by spreading the plague" is a really terrible position. It's bad now, but what happens when HerpEboSiphAIDS starts going pneumatic and has a 100% mortality rate? Should respect for bodily autonomy be a suicide pact?
I have no good answer. I wish I did. Either option seems terrible and both have downsides so big that doing nothing is unacceptable too.
posted by sotonohito at 8:43 AM on September 17, 2021 [17 favorites]
Somewhat unpopular/extreme opinion, religious exemptions are bullshit, why should you be given leeway to do X because you're really into a particular superstition?
I find it much easier to reason about them by replacing religion with "sport team you're a fan of".
posted by WaterAndPixels at 8:45 AM on September 17, 2021 [8 favorites]
I find it much easier to reason about them by replacing religion with "sport team you're a fan of".
posted by WaterAndPixels at 8:45 AM on September 17, 2021 [8 favorites]
courts typically DO NOT inquire into a) the actual beliefs of a particular religion; b) how closely any individual's beliefs conform to the faith they claim; or c) how closely either of those things is connected to reality. It's enough that the belief is "sincere."
I swear this is not snark, but an honest "sincere" question (and of course nobody can prove otherwise). But. Given this, what possible function or legitimacy can the law have? If anyone can claim any action is motivated by some religious belief made up on the spot - and which cannot be meaningfully questioned - then what can be against the law?
How can we have courts and claim they have any kind of jurisdiction? Is jurisdiction itself not meaningless if any law can be overridden by anyone at will?
posted by Naberius at 8:49 AM on September 17, 2021 [8 favorites]
I swear this is not snark, but an honest "sincere" question (and of course nobody can prove otherwise). But. Given this, what possible function or legitimacy can the law have? If anyone can claim any action is motivated by some religious belief made up on the spot - and which cannot be meaningfully questioned - then what can be against the law?
How can we have courts and claim they have any kind of jurisdiction? Is jurisdiction itself not meaningless if any law can be overridden by anyone at will?
posted by Naberius at 8:49 AM on September 17, 2021 [8 favorites]
Anything else puts the government in the position of deciding which religions are real and which aren't and that's not going to fly.
Well, yes, and that's what they have to do, or else we have only anarchy, as I claim above. I keep waiting for Christians to realize that, for any religious exemptions to make any sense, the government has to decide what is and is not religion and religious doctrine.
posted by Naberius at 8:51 AM on September 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
Well, yes, and that's what they have to do, or else we have only anarchy, as I claim above. I keep waiting for Christians to realize that, for any religious exemptions to make any sense, the government has to decide what is and is not religion and religious doctrine.
posted by Naberius at 8:51 AM on September 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
njohnson my cynical position here is that clearly the current Supreme Court is a conservative Christian supremacist organization and that it will not hesitate to privilege conservative positions and groups while denying equal levels of exemption for non-conservative and non-Christian people.
Funding MAGA hats will get a religious vaccine exemption. The Satanists will not get an exemption from anti-choice laws.
That's entirely hypocritical, inconsistent, and unfair. But when has the right ever cared about anything but dominance and power?
posted by sotonohito at 8:51 AM on September 17, 2021 [10 favorites]
Funding MAGA hats will get a religious vaccine exemption. The Satanists will not get an exemption from anti-choice laws.
That's entirely hypocritical, inconsistent, and unfair. But when has the right ever cared about anything but dominance and power?
posted by sotonohito at 8:51 AM on September 17, 2021 [10 favorites]
Have practicing Rastafarians ever had a religious exemption from cannabis prohibition laws in the US?
posted by acb at 8:55 AM on September 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by acb at 8:55 AM on September 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
i was born into eastern nondenominational washington football teamism, but my family converted to charismatic steelersism when i was little ("one for the thumb in '81!"). i dabbled in soccer, hockey, horse racing, growing up but am a rational and logical adult, now, with no time to admire practitioners of brutal simulated combat rituals from a more primitive time. don't tell me i have to pay attention to sports now just to preserve my bodily autonomy.
*removes jester cap, dons somewhat worn bowler*
it used to be precedent that a religiously-neutral law of general applicability -- such as cannabis prohibition or the withholding of federal benefits from native american church adherents permitted sacramental use of peyote in their state -- did not infringe the free exercise of religion. but this doesn't seem to be holding in recent years -- as xtian dominionists and their ilk resist the freedoms of others -- and some of the justices have expressed disregard for the convention of binding precedent. see, generally, some of the decisions on covid-emergency-related capacity restrictions at churches.
posted by 20 year lurk at 9:06 AM on September 17, 2021 [6 favorites]
*removes jester cap, dons somewhat worn bowler*
it used to be precedent that a religiously-neutral law of general applicability -- such as cannabis prohibition or the withholding of federal benefits from native american church adherents permitted sacramental use of peyote in their state -- did not infringe the free exercise of religion. but this doesn't seem to be holding in recent years -- as xtian dominionists and their ilk resist the freedoms of others -- and some of the justices have expressed disregard for the convention of binding precedent. see, generally, some of the decisions on covid-emergency-related capacity restrictions at churches.
posted by 20 year lurk at 9:06 AM on September 17, 2021 [6 favorites]
re: rastafarians. Nope. Not once.
And the Supreme Court found against native American groups claiming an exemption for peyote use.
Bold defender of religious freedom defender Justice Scalia wrote:
But when Grandpaw MAGA says that baby Jeebus will cry if he gets a vaccine then that's a sacred religious liberty which cannot be ignored.
And yes, I'm aware that between then and now the RFRA was passed. And yet the Rastafarians still can't legally toke up in a decision made **AFTER** the RFRA. So clearly not all religions are equal in the eyes of American law.
posted by sotonohito at 9:11 AM on September 17, 2021 [28 favorites]
And the Supreme Court found against native American groups claiming an exemption for peyote use.
Bold defender of religious freedom defender Justice Scalia wrote:
To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling"–permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself,"–contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense. To adopt a true "compelling interest" requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.So back then native Americans were told that their culture was a crime by colonizing genocides and this, per our righteous crusaders for religious liberty was totally fine.
But when Grandpaw MAGA says that baby Jeebus will cry if he gets a vaccine then that's a sacred religious liberty which cannot be ignored.
And yes, I'm aware that between then and now the RFRA was passed. And yet the Rastafarians still can't legally toke up in a decision made **AFTER** the RFRA. So clearly not all religions are equal in the eyes of American law.
posted by sotonohito at 9:11 AM on September 17, 2021 [28 favorites]
"Given this, what possible function or legitimacy can the law have? If anyone can claim any action is motivated by some religious belief made up on the spot - and which cannot be meaningfully questioned - then what can be against the law?"
So, lots of things have no religious exemption. There's no religious exemption for murdering people, for example. There's no religious exemption for drivers' license or state ID photos, even though some religious groups (i.e., Old-Order Amish) are flatly and clearly against photographs. They've sued, and they lost.
A variety of balancing tests have been used by the Court over the years, and they can be different in different areas -- the balancing test for parents who refuse their child medical care is very different from the balancing test for "ritual animals sacrifices not allowed within city limits." There's a shit-ton of legal nuance to this (here's a nutshell summary) and you can read lots of articles (and tbh I don't keep up-to-the-minute on this, as it's not an area of law I've ever practiced). But one of the most-commonly used standards is "compelling state interest." Which has meant different things as the Supreme Court has shifted its jurisprudence.
But basically, the government has a compelling state interest in you not murdering people, so you can't religiously exempt yourself from that law. It has a much less compelling state interest in "not allowing animal sacrifices within city limits" -- it could easily require them to be on private property, have sanitary standards, etc., rather than banning them completely.
Moreover, traditionally, seeking a religious exemption has also meant forgoing the benefits of whatever you want to exempt yourself from, although the right-wing evangelical politics has made a big project of getting "cost-free" religious exemptions. (As I noted above, a huge project of the right wing in the US is freedom for them to do stupid shit and never suffer any consequences -- people who say horrible racist things, get fired, and then complain their free speech was violated. Well, no, you exercised your free speech and experienced consequences; that's not the same thing.)
Most commentators think vaccine mandates are clearly within a compelling state interest standard and should fly through without a problem. Buuuuut there are going to be some very serious enforcement issues, since even in blue states with mask mandates there are schools that refuse to enforce the masking, and health department officials who refused to close any restaurants that continued operating when indoor dining was shut down, and so on.
"Have practicing Rastafarians ever had a religious exemption from cannabis prohibition laws in the US?"
AFAIK, no. Cannabis and peyote have been sued over for religious freedom reasons a BUNCH of times -- note that Catholic Churches were allowed to keep using wine (and giving it to minors) even during Prohibition, because if your religion is big enough, the law just kinda gets out of the way. But cannabis and peyote have been where the courts have drawn a line and refused to permit them, despite tons and tons of lawsuits over many years, including one by the First Church of Cannabis in Indiana that was founded specifically to troll Mike Pence when he was governor.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:12 AM on September 17, 2021 [22 favorites]
So, lots of things have no religious exemption. There's no religious exemption for murdering people, for example. There's no religious exemption for drivers' license or state ID photos, even though some religious groups (i.e., Old-Order Amish) are flatly and clearly against photographs. They've sued, and they lost.
A variety of balancing tests have been used by the Court over the years, and they can be different in different areas -- the balancing test for parents who refuse their child medical care is very different from the balancing test for "ritual animals sacrifices not allowed within city limits." There's a shit-ton of legal nuance to this (here's a nutshell summary) and you can read lots of articles (and tbh I don't keep up-to-the-minute on this, as it's not an area of law I've ever practiced). But one of the most-commonly used standards is "compelling state interest." Which has meant different things as the Supreme Court has shifted its jurisprudence.
But basically, the government has a compelling state interest in you not murdering people, so you can't religiously exempt yourself from that law. It has a much less compelling state interest in "not allowing animal sacrifices within city limits" -- it could easily require them to be on private property, have sanitary standards, etc., rather than banning them completely.
Moreover, traditionally, seeking a religious exemption has also meant forgoing the benefits of whatever you want to exempt yourself from, although the right-wing evangelical politics has made a big project of getting "cost-free" religious exemptions. (As I noted above, a huge project of the right wing in the US is freedom for them to do stupid shit and never suffer any consequences -- people who say horrible racist things, get fired, and then complain their free speech was violated. Well, no, you exercised your free speech and experienced consequences; that's not the same thing.)
Most commentators think vaccine mandates are clearly within a compelling state interest standard and should fly through without a problem. Buuuuut there are going to be some very serious enforcement issues, since even in blue states with mask mandates there are schools that refuse to enforce the masking, and health department officials who refused to close any restaurants that continued operating when indoor dining was shut down, and so on.
"Have practicing Rastafarians ever had a religious exemption from cannabis prohibition laws in the US?"
AFAIK, no. Cannabis and peyote have been sued over for religious freedom reasons a BUNCH of times -- note that Catholic Churches were allowed to keep using wine (and giving it to minors) even during Prohibition, because if your religion is big enough, the law just kinda gets out of the way. But cannabis and peyote have been where the courts have drawn a line and refused to permit them, despite tons and tons of lawsuits over many years, including one by the First Church of Cannabis in Indiana that was founded specifically to troll Mike Pence when he was governor.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:12 AM on September 17, 2021 [22 favorites]
Yeah, folks keep saying things like, "not with this conservative court" . . . And I'm not sure I see the point in that? So does that mean we just give up? There's just this constant stream of defeatism that runs through certain liberal circles I'll never understand. . . But yeah, religious exemptions are clearly bs. They only ever seem to go in one ideological direction . . .
posted by flamk at 9:14 AM on September 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by flamk at 9:14 AM on September 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
Not so much defeatism, as realism.
I don't think you'd get a ruling that there are no religious exemptions from COVID vaccines through any Court, but certainly not this one.
That doesn't mean we shrug and give up, it means we abandon that particular approach because it won't work. Don't waste scarce resources on projects that you can be confident will fail.
Instead try other approaches. It turns out that for many vaccine hesitant people knowing that more people are getting vaccinated will change their mind. Some are convinced by high profile people they respect getting vaccinated. Some are convinced by friends and family getting vaccinated and not having problems. Some are convinced simply by vaccination becoming normative and their desire to be normal.
So PSA's and ads and appeals to morality and normativity all presented by voices they trust (that is, not any of us icky liberal CommuNazis) are more likely to get us the outcome of increased vaccination than a legally questionable approach that is all but certain to be shut down by the Court.
posted by sotonohito at 9:34 AM on September 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
I don't think you'd get a ruling that there are no religious exemptions from COVID vaccines through any Court, but certainly not this one.
That doesn't mean we shrug and give up, it means we abandon that particular approach because it won't work. Don't waste scarce resources on projects that you can be confident will fail.
Instead try other approaches. It turns out that for many vaccine hesitant people knowing that more people are getting vaccinated will change their mind. Some are convinced by high profile people they respect getting vaccinated. Some are convinced by friends and family getting vaccinated and not having problems. Some are convinced simply by vaccination becoming normative and their desire to be normal.
So PSA's and ads and appeals to morality and normativity all presented by voices they trust (that is, not any of us icky liberal CommuNazis) are more likely to get us the outcome of increased vaccination than a legally questionable approach that is all but certain to be shut down by the Court.
posted by sotonohito at 9:34 AM on September 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
I suppose that depends on the WE you're talking about, flamk. The mainstream Democratic Party seems to feel their best interest is served by allowing the Republicans (and their fellow travelers in Corporations and centrist interest groups) to pretty much do as they please while occasionally politely asking them to behave. "Well no, this law has no teeth, we're counting on you to be a good citizen and behave, because."
posted by evilDoug at 9:38 AM on September 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by evilDoug at 9:38 AM on September 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
So PSA's and ads and appeals to morality and normativity all presented by voices they trust (that is, not any of us icky liberal CommuNazis) are more likely to get us the outcome of increased vaccination than a legally questionable approach that is all but certain to be shut down by the Court.
I'm just going to say, keep in mind that when Trump himself revealed at a rally he was vaccinated and he'd recommend people to go get vaccinated, he got booed.
"Given this, what possible function or legitimacy can the law have? If anyone can claim any action is motivated by some religious belief made up on the spot - and which cannot be meaningfully questioned - then what can be against the law?"
I had this answer written before the comment above about compelling state interest - so at the risk of repeating what's already been said, yes, that is the flip side of the coin to religious freedom that prevents anybody from doing anything and claiming it's their religion, that does not also put the State in the really awful position of having to determine the validity of people's religious beliefs.
posted by fortitude25 at 9:56 AM on September 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'm just going to say, keep in mind that when Trump himself revealed at a rally he was vaccinated and he'd recommend people to go get vaccinated, he got booed.
"Given this, what possible function or legitimacy can the law have? If anyone can claim any action is motivated by some religious belief made up on the spot - and which cannot be meaningfully questioned - then what can be against the law?"
I had this answer written before the comment above about compelling state interest - so at the risk of repeating what's already been said, yes, that is the flip side of the coin to religious freedom that prevents anybody from doing anything and claiming it's their religion, that does not also put the State in the really awful position of having to determine the validity of people's religious beliefs.
posted by fortitude25 at 9:56 AM on September 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
If this approach works for that one hospital in Arkansas, I'm all for it. You probably couldn't generalize it and trying to force compliance through gotchas probably won't work as others have said.
The right wing conspiracy machine that got so many people worked up about masks and vaccines didn't happen overnight, it was a long slow propagandist effort that's been happening for the last 40 years. To unwind the damage will be another long and slow process and it looks like the family doctor coming to back to school night and speaking with the concerned parents about the safety of the COVID vaccine. And that needs to happen all across the country, in every community, and in fact is happening all across the country, in many communities.
It will be long and slow, and then it will happen all at once.
posted by subdee at 10:33 AM on September 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
The right wing conspiracy machine that got so many people worked up about masks and vaccines didn't happen overnight, it was a long slow propagandist effort that's been happening for the last 40 years. To unwind the damage will be another long and slow process and it looks like the family doctor coming to back to school night and speaking with the concerned parents about the safety of the COVID vaccine. And that needs to happen all across the country, in every community, and in fact is happening all across the country, in many communities.
It will be long and slow, and then it will happen all at once.
posted by subdee at 10:33 AM on September 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
The graveyard is full of people that had faith for a shield.
Ah, but you're forgetting how the faithful would see this:
"The graveyard is full of the bodies of people who had faith for a shield, but their souls are up in Heaven because their faith was rewarded."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:14 AM on September 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
Ah, but you're forgetting how the faithful would see this:
"The graveyard is full of the bodies of people who had faith for a shield, but their souls are up in Heaven because their faith was rewarded."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:14 AM on September 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
But cannabis and peyote have been where the courts have drawn a line and refused to permit them, despite tons and tons of lawsuits over many years, including one by the First Church of Cannabis in Indiana that was founded specifically to troll Mike Pence when he was governor.
This is about where to really properly discuss in the larger context you have to think about who was on the Court when and about the Federal Society & etc.'s project to reverse the expansion of the Commerce power and all Federal power, including increasingly selective and plainly ideological deployment of religious freedom and freedom of expression to limit it.
For instance, in Gonzalez v Raich the Rhenquist Court rejected the 'states rights' arguments it had been adopting in cases like US v. Morrison, when advanced in application to state medical marijuana programs. This was the then-liberal majority's opportunity to curtail the assault on the Commerce power and all the socioeconomically justified legislation relying on it, at the cost of undermining marijuana reform by exploiting the conservative prejudice against it (including being able to split off Scalia).
RFRA was passed explicitly to respond to the Smith case that denied recognition to Native Americans using peyote ritually. This was further clarified by its 1994 amendments. In simplest terms, RFRA re-instituted strict scrutiny on abridgement of free exercise of religion. (The "Sherbert" test.)
Then in February 21, 2006, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), the government was required to allow import of Ayahuasca tea absent compelling interest to restrain religious observance.
However, no analogous exception to Schedule I status for cannabis has been found under RFRA; and Federal courts have held that prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act relying on Commerce power preempts States attempts to create a medical market (as you might expect conservatives to support in a vacuum, under delegation of the general police power to the states, i.e. general health and wellness).
We've arrived at a place where the Federal RFRA only restrains the Federal government, and states pass their own versions of it as they see fit -- as to go further would be in conflict with the conservative wing's true project of limiting Federal power by narrowing the application of the Fourteenth Amendment, as was done in Boerne v. Flores.
And see the whole mess involving RFRA and the ACA (and so the Commerce power) in the Hobby Lobby case, where the same authorities used to curtail employee rights on the basis of the employer's religion.
And to put all that in context and understand what conservatives want to return to, you have to have some understanding of the Lochner era, which came to end the last time the liberals threatened to pack an extremely conservative Court that stood in the way of the New Deal.
(Wiki links for readability, as these entries should have enough eyes on them to be decent, but look to their linked sources for better info.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:18 AM on September 17, 2021 [9 favorites]
This is about where to really properly discuss in the larger context you have to think about who was on the Court when and about the Federal Society & etc.'s project to reverse the expansion of the Commerce power and all Federal power, including increasingly selective and plainly ideological deployment of religious freedom and freedom of expression to limit it.
For instance, in Gonzalez v Raich the Rhenquist Court rejected the 'states rights' arguments it had been adopting in cases like US v. Morrison, when advanced in application to state medical marijuana programs. This was the then-liberal majority's opportunity to curtail the assault on the Commerce power and all the socioeconomically justified legislation relying on it, at the cost of undermining marijuana reform by exploiting the conservative prejudice against it (including being able to split off Scalia).
RFRA was passed explicitly to respond to the Smith case that denied recognition to Native Americans using peyote ritually. This was further clarified by its 1994 amendments. In simplest terms, RFRA re-instituted strict scrutiny on abridgement of free exercise of religion. (The "Sherbert" test.)
Then in February 21, 2006, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), the government was required to allow import of Ayahuasca tea absent compelling interest to restrain religious observance.
However, no analogous exception to Schedule I status for cannabis has been found under RFRA; and Federal courts have held that prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act relying on Commerce power preempts States attempts to create a medical market (as you might expect conservatives to support in a vacuum, under delegation of the general police power to the states, i.e. general health and wellness).
We've arrived at a place where the Federal RFRA only restrains the Federal government, and states pass their own versions of it as they see fit -- as to go further would be in conflict with the conservative wing's true project of limiting Federal power by narrowing the application of the Fourteenth Amendment, as was done in Boerne v. Flores.
And see the whole mess involving RFRA and the ACA (and so the Commerce power) in the Hobby Lobby case, where the same authorities used to curtail employee rights on the basis of the employer's religion.
And to put all that in context and understand what conservatives want to return to, you have to have some understanding of the Lochner era, which came to end the last time the liberals threatened to pack an extremely conservative Court that stood in the way of the New Deal.
(Wiki links for readability, as these entries should have enough eyes on them to be decent, but look to their linked sources for better info.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:18 AM on September 17, 2021 [9 favorites]
(Make that 'Federalist Society,' oops)
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:31 AM on September 17, 2021
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:31 AM on September 17, 2021
that's not actually how religious exemptions work in the United States; courts typically DO NOT inquire into a) the actual beliefs of a particular religion; b) how closely any individual's beliefs conform to the faith they claim; or c) how closely either of those things is connected to reality. It's enough that the belief is "sincere."
I will say that this is only how the government treats things it doesn't actually care about. For religious conscientious objection, they will inquire as to the beliefs of the specific religion, if your belief is a majority or minority belief, how sincere your actual religious practice is. And so honestly, I'm unsurprised about the idea that vaccine exemption may begin to start having to meet those standards - because it's risen to a level that the state actually cares about, rather than just being an odd practice of a few individuals.
posted by corb at 12:34 PM on September 17, 2021 [9 favorites]
I will say that this is only how the government treats things it doesn't actually care about. For religious conscientious objection, they will inquire as to the beliefs of the specific religion, if your belief is a majority or minority belief, how sincere your actual religious practice is. And so honestly, I'm unsurprised about the idea that vaccine exemption may begin to start having to meet those standards - because it's risen to a level that the state actually cares about, rather than just being an odd practice of a few individuals.
posted by corb at 12:34 PM on September 17, 2021 [9 favorites]
Idaho Is Rationing Health Care Statewide As It Struggles To Cope With COVID-19
People are dying who shouldn't, or wouldn't otherwise have, because anti-vaxxers have effectively been put in charge of our public health policy.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:58 PM on September 17, 2021 [10 favorites]
People are dying who shouldn't, or wouldn't otherwise have, because anti-vaxxers have effectively been put in charge of our public health policy.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:58 PM on September 17, 2021 [10 favorites]
Somewhat unpopular/extreme opinion, religious exemptions are bullshit, why should you be given leeway to do X because you're really into a particular superstition?
This is a really good question. Going further, you shouldn't be allowed to base any of your actions and choices on your own "personal value system," even if it's a secular one. "Personal values" have a long history of doing harm to individuals and society. You should always abide by what the scientific experts and government officials of your time say is necessary and correct.
posted by cinchona at 1:14 PM on September 17, 2021
This is a really good question. Going further, you shouldn't be allowed to base any of your actions and choices on your own "personal value system," even if it's a secular one. "Personal values" have a long history of doing harm to individuals and society. You should always abide by what the scientific experts and government officials of your time say is necessary and correct.
posted by cinchona at 1:14 PM on September 17, 2021
Going further, you shouldn't be allowed to base any of your actions and choices on your own "personal value system," even if it's a secular one. "Personal values" have a long history of doing harm to individuals and society. You should always abide by what the scientific experts and government officials of your time say is necessary and correct.
Are...are you serious? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I honestly can't tell.
posted by fortitude25 at 1:24 PM on September 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
Are...are you serious? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I honestly can't tell.
posted by fortitude25 at 1:24 PM on September 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
You should always abide by what the scientific experts and government officials of your time say is necessary and correct.
At least where it concerns public safety, probably — just as seat belts, helmet laws, and speed limits are not signs of authoritarian tyranny, nor are they moral judgements upon drivers or riders.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:33 PM on September 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
At least where it concerns public safety, probably — just as seat belts, helmet laws, and speed limits are not signs of authoritarian tyranny, nor are they moral judgements upon drivers or riders.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:33 PM on September 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
Are...are you serious? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I honestly can't tell.
No, not serious. I just pretty much hate everything now, and am annoyed that so many people pick and choose which institutions to view with either wide-eyed childlike trust, or complete hostility, based on their politics, when all institutions are severely damaging.
posted by cinchona at 1:42 PM on September 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
No, not serious. I just pretty much hate everything now, and am annoyed that so many people pick and choose which institutions to view with either wide-eyed childlike trust, or complete hostility, based on their politics, when all institutions are severely damaging.
posted by cinchona at 1:42 PM on September 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
so many people pick and choose which institutions to view with either wide-eyed childlike trust, or complete hostility
Thank you for responding, I share your point of view.
posted by fortitude25 at 2:33 PM on September 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
Thank you for responding, I share your point of view.
posted by fortitude25 at 2:33 PM on September 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
I have wondered for a while if religious freedom arguments have ever been made for abortion rights and (years ago) gay marriage.
posted by sepviva at 2:36 PM on September 17, 2021
posted by sepviva at 2:36 PM on September 17, 2021
I have wondered for a while if religious freedom arguments have ever been made for abortion rights
They have now: Satanic Temple challenges Texas abortion restrictions for its members, claiming religious exemptions
"AUSTIN — Among the challenges looming for Texas’ new “heartbeat law” is one from The Satanic Temple, whose legal counsel is arguing to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration that members should continue to have access to abortion-inducing medication under the state’s religious medical exemption.
The Satanic Temple (TST), which is recognized as a religion by the Internal Revenue Service, contends that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. which allows Native Americans to have access to drugs for religious rituals also applies to Satanists.
The federal act is based on a section of the Fourteenth Amendment that has been interpreted by courts to require state compliance with the First Amendment. Congress has since amended the religious freedom act so that it applies only to federal entities, including the FDA. But the state also has a religious medical exemption, and TST says it has requested officials follow it in this case.
“Normally, access to Misoprostol requires a prescription, and Mifepristone can only be obtained through an approved prescriber and can only be dispensed in accordance with specific guidelines,” the religion says on its website. “TST has requested that we can directly supply Satanists who wish to undergo an abortion in a religious context with these abortifacients.”"
posted by soundguy99 at 3:58 PM on September 17, 2021 [13 favorites]
They have now: Satanic Temple challenges Texas abortion restrictions for its members, claiming religious exemptions
"AUSTIN — Among the challenges looming for Texas’ new “heartbeat law” is one from The Satanic Temple, whose legal counsel is arguing to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration that members should continue to have access to abortion-inducing medication under the state’s religious medical exemption.
The Satanic Temple (TST), which is recognized as a religion by the Internal Revenue Service, contends that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. which allows Native Americans to have access to drugs for religious rituals also applies to Satanists.
The federal act is based on a section of the Fourteenth Amendment that has been interpreted by courts to require state compliance with the First Amendment. Congress has since amended the religious freedom act so that it applies only to federal entities, including the FDA. But the state also has a religious medical exemption, and TST says it has requested officials follow it in this case.
“Normally, access to Misoprostol requires a prescription, and Mifepristone can only be obtained through an approved prescriber and can only be dispensed in accordance with specific guidelines,” the religion says on its website. “TST has requested that we can directly supply Satanists who wish to undergo an abortion in a religious context with these abortifacients.”"
posted by soundguy99 at 3:58 PM on September 17, 2021 [13 favorites]
"That Jesus 'quote' above pretty much puts the kibosh on Thoughts and Prayers, if you look at it like that. "Don't test me," says God. "Choose to do (or not do) whatever stupid shit floats your boat, but don't turn it into a test of God's powers. That BS is on your dumb ass.""
In Christianity, this is a sin literally called "tempting God" and has a history going back to at least Deuteronomy, and the prohibition is firmly reiterated in the story of the devil tempting Jesus. There's literally millennia of people saying "don't do this, it's bad and pisses God off." It's paragraph 2119 in the Catholic catechism (and is a mortal sin in cases like medical treatment; venial sin if it's a trivial matter like lottery numbers). Like it's literally Satan shit to say "I can go walk unvaccinated amongst the lepers and Covid-havers because Jesus will protect me!" Like, damn dude, stop writing your own ticket to hell. There's a very, very small handful of things Jesus specifically says not to do, and that is one of them.
Most Christian theologians who talk about it say that "tempting God" is actually an expression of doubt, not faith, because people who insist "Jesus will protect me" require constant reassurance of that fact through proof. Whereas if they actually believed in God, they a) wouldn't expect God to provide constant miracles to validate their life choices and b) would think Jesus could protect them from the Covid shot too.
(As every Catholic in the world has at some point argued, "Look, if God's all-powerful, God can just break the condom." If God can protect you from Covid, God can protect you from the vaccine just as easily. Maybe God made your cousin's friend's balls swell up because God just doesn't like him (and/or because that's chlamydia).)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:09 PM on September 17, 2021 [35 favorites]
In Christianity, this is a sin literally called "tempting God" and has a history going back to at least Deuteronomy, and the prohibition is firmly reiterated in the story of the devil tempting Jesus. There's literally millennia of people saying "don't do this, it's bad and pisses God off." It's paragraph 2119 in the Catholic catechism (and is a mortal sin in cases like medical treatment; venial sin if it's a trivial matter like lottery numbers). Like it's literally Satan shit to say "I can go walk unvaccinated amongst the lepers and Covid-havers because Jesus will protect me!" Like, damn dude, stop writing your own ticket to hell. There's a very, very small handful of things Jesus specifically says not to do, and that is one of them.
Most Christian theologians who talk about it say that "tempting God" is actually an expression of doubt, not faith, because people who insist "Jesus will protect me" require constant reassurance of that fact through proof. Whereas if they actually believed in God, they a) wouldn't expect God to provide constant miracles to validate their life choices and b) would think Jesus could protect them from the Covid shot too.
(As every Catholic in the world has at some point argued, "Look, if God's all-powerful, God can just break the condom." If God can protect you from Covid, God can protect you from the vaccine just as easily. Maybe God made your cousin's friend's balls swell up because God just doesn't like him (and/or because that's chlamydia).)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:09 PM on September 17, 2021 [35 favorites]
I have wondered for a while if religious freedom arguments have ever been made for abortion rights
Judaism and abortion wikipedia entry; 2019 USA Today article; Pew Research, US Religious Landscape Study, Views about abortion by religious group chart has the percentage of adults by religious affiliation who say abortion should be "legal in all/most cases": Jewish, 83%; Buddhist, 82%, Hindu, 68%...
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:39 PM on September 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
Judaism and abortion wikipedia entry; 2019 USA Today article; Pew Research, US Religious Landscape Study, Views about abortion by religious group chart has the percentage of adults by religious affiliation who say abortion should be "legal in all/most cases": Jewish, 83%; Buddhist, 82%, Hindu, 68%...
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:39 PM on September 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
In Christianity, this is a sin literally called "tempting God" and has a history going back to at least Deuteronomy, and the prohibition is firmly reiterated in the story of the devil tempting Jesus. There's literally millennia of people saying "don't do this, it's bad and pisses God off."
God is a jealous and insecure god. When he can't perform, he lashes out.
posted by clawsoon at 4:45 PM on September 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
God is a jealous and insecure god. When he can't perform, he lashes out.
posted by clawsoon at 4:45 PM on September 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
In Canada, many hospitals and police forces are requiring full vaccination. I read roughly eight to twelve comments a day on how forcing medical procedures on people as a condition of employment* is absolutely illegal and how obviously this will be ended with the first lawsuit. I sometimes ask commenters why they don’t launch this lawsuit themselves, as it sounds super easy to win.
No response so far.
*I have read that astronauts are “strongly encouraged” to have appendixes and wisdom teeth removed before leaving the atmosphere; likewise researchers going for an extended stay in Antarctica. I wonder to what degree the Venn circles of antivaxxer and flat-earther overlap — in short, I wonder if I were to bring this up, whether someone would pity my gullibility as a sheeple for thinking space and Antarctica exist.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 4:58 PM on September 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
No response so far.
*I have read that astronauts are “strongly encouraged” to have appendixes and wisdom teeth removed before leaving the atmosphere; likewise researchers going for an extended stay in Antarctica. I wonder to what degree the Venn circles of antivaxxer and flat-earther overlap — in short, I wonder if I were to bring this up, whether someone would pity my gullibility as a sheeple for thinking space and Antarctica exist.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 4:58 PM on September 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
Just a footnote for those whose eyes haven't already glazed over -- the Lochner case [Oyez summary] itself discussed [full text] the vaccine case that a lot of overconfident editorial relies upon, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), which was new case at the time:
Therefore, when the state, by its legislature, in the assumed exercise of its police powers, has passed an act which seriously limits the right to labor or the right of contract in regard to their means of livelihood between persons who are sui juris (both employer and employee), it becomes of great importance to determine which shall prevail,—the right of the individual to labor for such time as he may choose, or the right of the state to prevent the individual from laboring, or from entering into any contract to labor, beyond a certain time prescribed by the state....
The latest case decided by this court, involving the police power, is that of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, decided at this term and reported in 197 U. S. 11, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 358, 49 L. ed.——. It related to compulsory vaccination, and the law was held vaild as a proper exercise of the police powers with reference to the public health. It was stated in the opinion that it was a case 'of an adult who, for aught that appears, was himself in perfect health and a fit subject of vaccination, and yet, while remaining in the community, refused to obey the statute and the regulation, adopted in execution of its provisions, for the protection of the public health and the public safety, confessedly endangered by the presence of a dangerous disease.' That case is also far from covering the one now before the court.
In the context of Covid vaccine mandates, the current composition of SCOTUS and the politicized response to the mandate evidenced across print, broadcast and social media, it weighs heavily on my mind that one of the explicit bases of the holding in Jacobson was that it was a legitimate exercise of specifically state-level general police power, as delegated Constitutionally. It's not hard to see the current conservative majority distinguishing it on that basis from Federal regulations by OSHA, based on preemption under that nefarious Commerce power, that are insensitive to local conditions and 'economic substantive due process' under 'states rights' (giving it that Lochnerian flavor, although I don't think they'll actually use that language).
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:50 PM on September 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
Therefore, when the state, by its legislature, in the assumed exercise of its police powers, has passed an act which seriously limits the right to labor or the right of contract in regard to their means of livelihood between persons who are sui juris (both employer and employee), it becomes of great importance to determine which shall prevail,—the right of the individual to labor for such time as he may choose, or the right of the state to prevent the individual from laboring, or from entering into any contract to labor, beyond a certain time prescribed by the state....
The latest case decided by this court, involving the police power, is that of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, decided at this term and reported in 197 U. S. 11, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 358, 49 L. ed.——. It related to compulsory vaccination, and the law was held vaild as a proper exercise of the police powers with reference to the public health. It was stated in the opinion that it was a case 'of an adult who, for aught that appears, was himself in perfect health and a fit subject of vaccination, and yet, while remaining in the community, refused to obey the statute and the regulation, adopted in execution of its provisions, for the protection of the public health and the public safety, confessedly endangered by the presence of a dangerous disease.' That case is also far from covering the one now before the court.
In the context of Covid vaccine mandates, the current composition of SCOTUS and the politicized response to the mandate evidenced across print, broadcast and social media, it weighs heavily on my mind that one of the explicit bases of the holding in Jacobson was that it was a legitimate exercise of specifically state-level general police power, as delegated Constitutionally. It's not hard to see the current conservative majority distinguishing it on that basis from Federal regulations by OSHA, based on preemption under that nefarious Commerce power, that are insensitive to local conditions and 'economic substantive due process' under 'states rights' (giving it that Lochnerian flavor, although I don't think they'll actually use that language).
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:50 PM on September 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
Anything else puts the government in the position of deciding which religions are real and which aren't and that's not going to fly.
They already do.
What’s the difference between a religious belief and a regular belief? A supernatural element? The number of people who agree? Whether some representative has filled out the proper forms?
I fail to see any principled distinction here, yet it’s one that the government routinely makes, apparently (cf Scalia above) based on whether the people in power feel comfortable with it.
posted by bjrubble at 6:58 PM on September 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
They already do.
What’s the difference between a religious belief and a regular belief? A supernatural element? The number of people who agree? Whether some representative has filled out the proper forms?
I fail to see any principled distinction here, yet it’s one that the government routinely makes, apparently (cf Scalia above) based on whether the people in power feel comfortable with it.
posted by bjrubble at 6:58 PM on September 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
In a sane world, Minaj's ridiculous swollen testicles would not be a religious exemption. But she could argue for it, and some people will apparently support her, and that means we have a serious problem.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:33 PM on September 17, 2021
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:33 PM on September 17, 2021
This week's episode of the NPR program On The Media does a bit of a deep dive into religious exceptions and the legal nuances involved.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:22 AM on September 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:22 AM on September 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
tl;dr It would be really great if this actually did anything, but I don't expect it will. I used to believe in the goodness of people. I am sick in my heart and don't know what to do. Get your shots; wear your mask; check on your people; and, for the love of everything, please keep voting on every little thing, local to federal.
I used to live in Conway for a while, and I have lived in Arkansas my whole life. The whole anti-vaccination and anti-mask thing happening state-wide here just baffles me, sort of. The governor is a joke who just mealy mouths his way around on the weekly covid updates and the Sunday morning news shows because he happens to be the chair of the governor's group. (He also basically heavily limited the really great state insurance for minors, including my daughter's, but that's a whole other story.)
There are so many people here who don't think covid is even real, even where I live in the most blue part of the state. I had neighbors across the street during most of 2020 who routinely had really big family gatherings in the front yard when they had a really big fenced back yard. Like including all the cousins and in-laws. And yes, MAGA hats and the associated flags. The wife works for a large ophthalmology/optometry clinic and often complained loudly about having to wear a mask at work. This was well before vaccines were available. They moved to a nearby redder county in the Spring.
Meanwhile, Sarah Huckabee Sanders is getting huge amounts of money from everywhere to be the next governor here. I guess she liked living in the mansion when her daddy had the position. Perhaps more people should ask her about her brother as well as her constant lying. Oh, and the whole family's relationship with the Duggars and making excuses for the pedophile son there.
I'm sure that it is clear that I am angry. My Dad lives in a nursing home and had covid/pneumonia back in the November. The closest hospital to be able to treat him was in Conway. Not this particular hospital, though. He recovered, kind of. His dementia and physical condition worsened, and we just recently found he has had blood clots in his lungs. Luckily, the treatment for that is relatively easy and non-invasive.
My entire family has been vaccinated and wear masks in public, but I still have only gotten to meet my grandson (born in November) in person one time in the past year (in May when we were all freshly fully vaccinated... it was such a happy day!) because we didn't want his parents to bring him to our hotspot city or to potentially expose our unknowingly contagious selves to him. Thank goodness for video calls. A majority of my family work in the public (including education and healthcare) where folks just don't care. They have been exposed and had to be tested more than a couple times each since the beginning of the school year.
Just to be clear, I live in a university town. The motorcycle rally got "postponed" but is still going to basically happen, just mostly in neighboring areas. The riders have basically said they were going to not spend money, but go places and cough on people. Sports events are sold out to standing room only with masks "recommended but not required." Music events are also still sold out with a few artists requiring vaccination or negative test proof. A neighboring school board removed all mask requirements for K-7th this week.
Did I mention that this is a state-wide hotspot in terms of covid sickness and deaths?
I feel like it is going to take a crisis of children and even more school teachers and staff dying or getting the long-covid to even get people's attention.
I don't know, y'all. I just feel like I don't have a lot of hope at this point. I mostly feel disappointed and heartbroken.
Thanks if you made it to the end of this. Please take care of yourselves and all those around you.
And once again... Get your shots; wear your mask; check on your people; and, for the love of everything, please keep voting on every little thing, local to federal.
posted by lilywing13 at 4:46 AM on September 18, 2021 [23 favorites]
I used to live in Conway for a while, and I have lived in Arkansas my whole life. The whole anti-vaccination and anti-mask thing happening state-wide here just baffles me, sort of. The governor is a joke who just mealy mouths his way around on the weekly covid updates and the Sunday morning news shows because he happens to be the chair of the governor's group. (He also basically heavily limited the really great state insurance for minors, including my daughter's, but that's a whole other story.)
There are so many people here who don't think covid is even real, even where I live in the most blue part of the state. I had neighbors across the street during most of 2020 who routinely had really big family gatherings in the front yard when they had a really big fenced back yard. Like including all the cousins and in-laws. And yes, MAGA hats and the associated flags. The wife works for a large ophthalmology/optometry clinic and often complained loudly about having to wear a mask at work. This was well before vaccines were available. They moved to a nearby redder county in the Spring.
Meanwhile, Sarah Huckabee Sanders is getting huge amounts of money from everywhere to be the next governor here. I guess she liked living in the mansion when her daddy had the position. Perhaps more people should ask her about her brother as well as her constant lying. Oh, and the whole family's relationship with the Duggars and making excuses for the pedophile son there.
I'm sure that it is clear that I am angry. My Dad lives in a nursing home and had covid/pneumonia back in the November. The closest hospital to be able to treat him was in Conway. Not this particular hospital, though. He recovered, kind of. His dementia and physical condition worsened, and we just recently found he has had blood clots in his lungs. Luckily, the treatment for that is relatively easy and non-invasive.
My entire family has been vaccinated and wear masks in public, but I still have only gotten to meet my grandson (born in November) in person one time in the past year (in May when we were all freshly fully vaccinated... it was such a happy day!) because we didn't want his parents to bring him to our hotspot city or to potentially expose our unknowingly contagious selves to him. Thank goodness for video calls. A majority of my family work in the public (including education and healthcare) where folks just don't care. They have been exposed and had to be tested more than a couple times each since the beginning of the school year.
Just to be clear, I live in a university town. The motorcycle rally got "postponed" but is still going to basically happen, just mostly in neighboring areas. The riders have basically said they were going to not spend money, but go places and cough on people. Sports events are sold out to standing room only with masks "recommended but not required." Music events are also still sold out with a few artists requiring vaccination or negative test proof. A neighboring school board removed all mask requirements for K-7th this week.
Did I mention that this is a state-wide hotspot in terms of covid sickness and deaths?
I feel like it is going to take a crisis of children and even more school teachers and staff dying or getting the long-covid to even get people's attention.
I don't know, y'all. I just feel like I don't have a lot of hope at this point. I mostly feel disappointed and heartbroken.
Thanks if you made it to the end of this. Please take care of yourselves and all those around you.
And once again... Get your shots; wear your mask; check on your people; and, for the love of everything, please keep voting on every little thing, local to federal.
posted by lilywing13 at 4:46 AM on September 18, 2021 [23 favorites]
Maybe God made your cousin's friend's balls swell up because God just doesn't like him (and/or because that's chlamydia
Apparently it could also be gonorrhea! And you know it went down like this:
Minaj’s cousin’s friend’s fiancé: Babe, why are your balls swelling up?
Minaj’s cousin’s friend: Uh, I dunno.
Later at doctor’s office -
Doctor: I’m sorry to inform you that you have [STD]. You should inform all of your sexual partners so that they can get tested and receive treatment too.
Fiancé: How did this happen? I’m his only sexual partner. We’re getting married in a couple weeks!
Friend: …
Later:
Minaj’s cousin, to friend: Buddy, why did the wedding get called off? What’s your fiancé saying about your balls swelling up?
Friend: Oh, she has some crazy idea, don’t listen to her. What actually happened was… uh… you see… COVID vaccine! That’s right, COVID vaccine swole my balls. And then she just left me! Boo hoo hoo poor me!
Both, in unison: Women! Amiright!
Thought that apparently did not cross anyone’s mind in the chain of transmission of the version of this anecdote that Minaj’s tweeted: are men’s testes really so important to women that some probably temporary swelling would be enough to call off a wedding?
posted by eviemath at 7:26 AM on September 18, 2021 [7 favorites]
Apparently it could also be gonorrhea! And you know it went down like this:
Minaj’s cousin’s friend’s fiancé: Babe, why are your balls swelling up?
Minaj’s cousin’s friend: Uh, I dunno.
Later at doctor’s office -
Doctor: I’m sorry to inform you that you have [STD]. You should inform all of your sexual partners so that they can get tested and receive treatment too.
Fiancé: How did this happen? I’m his only sexual partner. We’re getting married in a couple weeks!
Friend: …
Later:
Minaj’s cousin, to friend: Buddy, why did the wedding get called off? What’s your fiancé saying about your balls swelling up?
Friend: Oh, she has some crazy idea, don’t listen to her. What actually happened was… uh… you see… COVID vaccine! That’s right, COVID vaccine swole my balls. And then she just left me! Boo hoo hoo poor me!
Both, in unison: Women! Amiright!
Thought that apparently did not cross anyone’s mind in the chain of transmission of the version of this anecdote that Minaj’s tweeted: are men’s testes really so important to women that some probably temporary swelling would be enough to call off a wedding?
posted by eviemath at 7:26 AM on September 18, 2021 [7 favorites]
There is the snake handling version of Christianity, which includes religious rites that involve holding poisonous snakes. This is based on a few Bible verses, including Mark 16:17-18, which says in part, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." People do die from handling poisonous snakes (surprise!), but Christians can always say that it was because they didn't have enough faith. Many years ago, I was limping, and a young woman came up and told me that God had told her to heal my leg. We actually chatted for a while, and I did like her, but ultimately, I turned her down because I knew that if it didn't work, she could always say I didn't have enough faith.
I have to wonder how many of these people saying God will protect them from COVID would be willing to try snake handling.
I had a blood draw yesterday, and the phlebotomist was telling me she was one of the first people to get COVID in the hospital system where she works. She missed four months of work. She had lupus already, but COVID gave her Hashimoto's, and now she's on thyroid medicine for the rest of her life. She also ended up developing problems with arrhythmia due to COVID, though that is starting to resolve now.
I am sometimes so depressed and other times just furious. I haven't seen my grandchildren since before COVID, including one who was born just before the first cases in the US. They live across the country and I'm immunocompromised, so I'd have to fly to see them. I'd been planning to move closer, but I'm not sure how I can manage that until things get better. And one of my sisters said she'd get vaccinated when there was FDA approval of the vaccine, and she's just not doing it. I just don't even know how to handle this anymore. Thank God for therapy and my many sane vaccinated friends.
posted by FencingGal at 10:52 AM on September 18, 2021 [11 favorites]
I have to wonder how many of these people saying God will protect them from COVID would be willing to try snake handling.
I had a blood draw yesterday, and the phlebotomist was telling me she was one of the first people to get COVID in the hospital system where she works. She missed four months of work. She had lupus already, but COVID gave her Hashimoto's, and now she's on thyroid medicine for the rest of her life. She also ended up developing problems with arrhythmia due to COVID, though that is starting to resolve now.
I am sometimes so depressed and other times just furious. I haven't seen my grandchildren since before COVID, including one who was born just before the first cases in the US. They live across the country and I'm immunocompromised, so I'd have to fly to see them. I'd been planning to move closer, but I'm not sure how I can manage that until things get better. And one of my sisters said she'd get vaccinated when there was FDA approval of the vaccine, and she's just not doing it. I just don't even know how to handle this anymore. Thank God for therapy and my many sane vaccinated friends.
posted by FencingGal at 10:52 AM on September 18, 2021 [11 favorites]
Anything else puts the government in the position of deciding which religions are real and which aren't and that's not going to fly
It's a position that might never fly, but it's been lumbering quite forcefully for centuries at this point. Compare and contrast e.g. the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania's success at persuading government to treat its teachings as a real religion with that of e.g. any indigenous group with some form of psychedelic sacrament.
Not saying that this kind of decision is usually made fairly or even reasonably, but it certainly gets made and has done for a very long time.
posted by flabdablet at 8:45 PM on September 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
It's a position that might never fly, but it's been lumbering quite forcefully for centuries at this point. Compare and contrast e.g. the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania's success at persuading government to treat its teachings as a real religion with that of e.g. any indigenous group with some form of psychedelic sacrament.
Not saying that this kind of decision is usually made fairly or even reasonably, but it certainly gets made and has done for a very long time.
posted by flabdablet at 8:45 PM on September 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
That’s right, COVID vaccine swole my balls.
Testicular hydrocele due to filaria parasite infection is called “ballsswellup” in the official language (Pidgen) In Papua New Guinea. The accompanying hand gesture is to hold your arms out in front in a big round O, touching your fingertips together at your groin area. This emphasizes the enormity of the scrotum. I had a tropical medicine class and the Professsor would do this gesture every time he said “hydrocele ” or “ballsswellup” while talking about the disease. He had been working to eradicate filariasis for 30 years and spent a lot of time in PNG. I went to there a few times to do research and saw first hand ballsswellup, as well as breastswellup. Horrid disease that may require surgery to reduce the physical deformity. The infection is treated with ivermectin, among other anti-parasitic drugs.
posted by waving at 2:26 AM on September 19, 2021 [8 favorites]
Testicular hydrocele due to filaria parasite infection is called “ballsswellup” in the official language (Pidgen) In Papua New Guinea. The accompanying hand gesture is to hold your arms out in front in a big round O, touching your fingertips together at your groin area. This emphasizes the enormity of the scrotum. I had a tropical medicine class and the Professsor would do this gesture every time he said “hydrocele ” or “ballsswellup” while talking about the disease. He had been working to eradicate filariasis for 30 years and spent a lot of time in PNG. I went to there a few times to do research and saw first hand ballsswellup, as well as breastswellup. Horrid disease that may require surgery to reduce the physical deformity. The infection is treated with ivermectin, among other anti-parasitic drugs.
posted by waving at 2:26 AM on September 19, 2021 [8 favorites]
Well there you go! If it's treated with ivermectin it must be caused by COVID vaccine. Case closed. Do your own research.
posted by flabdablet at 7:56 PM on September 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 7:56 PM on September 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
Anything else puts the government in the position of deciding which religions are real and which aren't and that's not going to fly.
Who says they have to choose? Get rid of ALL religious exemptions is one possibility.
Maybe also make choosing a "philosophical" exemption has consequences. Haven't thought about what that would be.
posted by kschang at 8:22 PM on September 19, 2021
Who says they have to choose? Get rid of ALL religious exemptions is one possibility.
Maybe also make choosing a "philosophical" exemption has consequences. Haven't thought about what that would be.
posted by kschang at 8:22 PM on September 19, 2021
In sorta related news...
A Texas restaurant near DFW apparently has a NO-MASK policy... People who enter wearing masks, even if they have a legit reason, are asked to leave or de-mask.
posted by kschang at 8:25 PM on September 19, 2021
A Texas restaurant near DFW apparently has a NO-MASK policy... People who enter wearing masks, even if they have a legit reason, are asked to leave or de-mask.
posted by kschang at 8:25 PM on September 19, 2021
Because it's all about freedom and choice for individuals! Yeah, that's it.
posted by flabdablet at 8:41 PM on September 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by flabdablet at 8:41 PM on September 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
If you get hepatitis, botulism or E. coli poisoning etc. from eating at a restaurant, you have the right to sue that establishment for making you sick. Texas is Texas, sure, but liability and food safety laws are still part of the legal fabric everywhere, and I'm surprised that there haven't been more widespread lawsuits against garbage people who deliberately put everyone around them at risk of serious illness or death by asphyxiation from Covid.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:31 AM on September 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:31 AM on September 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
A Texas restaurant near DFW apparently has a NO-MASK policy... People who enter wearing masks, even if they have a legit reason, are asked to leave or de-mask.
Let's start a pool on when the first fistfight over this happens. I'll take "never."
posted by rhizome at 12:53 PM on September 20, 2021
Let's start a pool on when the first fistfight over this happens. I'll take "never."
posted by rhizome at 12:53 PM on September 20, 2021
Who says they have to choose? Get rid of ALL religious exemptions is one possibility.I’ve been thinking that it should allow you to avoid an action which requires something objectionable but not allow you to participate without meeting that requirement. Allow the Amish to opt out of social security, for example, but not receive benefits. I think the trick would be recognizing where the choice impacts others: for example, requiring vaccination for first responders and medical workers is clearly in the public interest but perhaps there might be room to say that someone in a different job is allowed not to be vaccinated if they can show that their job is isolated / outdoors, similar to how many religious pacifists would not serve in the military but might be open to working as a fire spotter or something which doesn’t involve violence.
Maybe also make choosing a "philosophical" exemption has consequences. Haven't thought about what that would be.
posted by adamsc at 10:55 AM on September 21, 2021
similar to how many religious pacifists would not serve in the military but might be open to working as a fire spotter or something which doesn’t involve violence.
I wouldn't trust someone who doesn't have the civic responsibility to get vaccinated during a pandemic to spot fires. Some people just want to watch the world burn.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:41 PM on September 21, 2021 [1 favorite]
I wouldn't trust someone who doesn't have the civic responsibility to get vaccinated during a pandemic to spot fires. Some people just want to watch the world burn.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:41 PM on September 21, 2021 [1 favorite]
I think back in Vietnam days, conscientious objectors are given the choice of becoming army medics and never have to hold a gun. I believe at least one got a CMOH out of it.
Found it, Thomas W. Bennett, posthumous. And he's the second conscientious objector to get CMOH.
posted by kschang at 3:35 PM on September 21, 2021 [1 favorite]
Found it, Thomas W. Bennett, posthumous. And he's the second conscientious objector to get CMOH.
posted by kschang at 3:35 PM on September 21, 2021 [1 favorite]
I find the idea of a public servant like first responders refusing COVID vaccine utterly ridiculous. And I am starting to hate the media who focus on their selfishness as if they are suffering in some sort of martyrdom.
My local news just highlighted some RESERVE cop refusing COVID vaccine mandate and resigned. The guy gave no reason why he refused to vaccinate. Apparently his "right to choose" outweighs his desire to protect the public.
posted by kschang at 3:49 PM on September 21, 2021
My local news just highlighted some RESERVE cop refusing COVID vaccine mandate and resigned. The guy gave no reason why he refused to vaccinate. Apparently his "right to choose" outweighs his desire to protect the public.
posted by kschang at 3:49 PM on September 21, 2021
He's got a beet farm to fall back on, he was just a tourist.
posted by rhizome at 12:07 AM on September 22, 2021
posted by rhizome at 12:07 AM on September 22, 2021
Deadline Looming, Thousands of Health Care Workers in New York Get Vaccinated (NYT via Yahoo, Sept. 28, 2021) When New York state officials issued a sweeping coronavirus vaccine mandate for health care workers in August, they expressed confidence that it would pressure reluctant doctors, nurses and support staff to get the shot. On Monday, as the deadline for vaccinations for about 600,000 nursing home and hospital workers arrived, it seemed that bet had proved to be at least partially correct. With just days or even hours to spare, thousands of health care workers got inoculated, according to health officials across the state. And while thousands more workers remained unvaccinated, and thus in danger of being suspended or fired, the rush of last-minute vaccinations appeared to blunt the worst-case scenarios for staffing shortages that some institutions had feared. [...]
In New York, workers who have applied for religious exemptions — likely thousands of people — are temporarily permitted to continue working until Oct. 12. The state’s emergency regulation requiring vaccination does not permit religious exemptions, but Judge David N. Hurd in Utica has prevented the state from enforcing that part of the mandate until he issues a ruling on the merits of a lawsuit filed by 17 medical workers.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:43 PM on September 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
In New York, workers who have applied for religious exemptions — likely thousands of people — are temporarily permitted to continue working until Oct. 12. The state’s emergency regulation requiring vaccination does not permit religious exemptions, but Judge David N. Hurd in Utica has prevented the state from enforcing that part of the mandate until he issues a ruling on the merits of a lawsuit filed by 17 medical workers.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:43 PM on September 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
« Older Concrete Thinking | Plainte - Chekoua - Lamentation / Épreuve -... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
With this Court? I'm not betting on it.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:58 PM on September 16, 2021 [25 favorites]