Let's talk about this - vax-related

[sv917]

Jan 28, 2015 16:01:31 GMT -5 @sing2phins said:

Jan 28, 2015 15:43:33 GMT -5 shanbp said:

Would any of you feel differently if the child was not vaccinated based on true religious beliefs vs a loose "personal objection"

I would only feel differently in a legal sense; that is, I would understand why schools couldn't legally keep those kids out.  But I still wouldn't want my kids anywhere near those kids.

But I think it should not be so easy as it is in California; I think you should have to demonstrate (like, legally; at least by affidavit or something under penalty of perjury) that (1) you are a practicing, believing member of a given religion and (2) that the religion actually forbids medical care in general or vaccinations in particular.

For the record, I would still think you were being dangerously cavalier with your children's health (to say nothing of the health of others).

This. I think the government should treat those people differently. I, however, do not feel differently. If your religion puts others at risk, you are just as crazy as people who don't understand how science works. Please stay away from my family.

[Cherhorowitz]

I am 100% pro-vaccination and I want every child around my child to be vaccinated. But I see a potential problem with having people explain their personal beliefs. What if a person doesn't vaccinate because they practice a lesser unknown or obscure religion? Are we going to start deciding what religions are worthy of not vaccinating? Are we even going to start asking people to explain exactly what they believe? It's a slippery slope.

I would love if schools enforced this but I think it opens the door to a lot of issues.

[mskatiep]

Jan 28, 2015 18:59:05 GMT -5 Cherhorowitz said:

I am 100% pro-vaccination and I want every child around my child to be vaccinated. But I see a potential problem with having people explain their personal beliefs. What if a person doesn't vaccinate because they practice a lesser unknown or obscure religion? Are we going to start deciding what religions are worthy of not vaccinating? Are we even going to start asking people to explain exactly what they believe? It's a slippery slope.

I would love if schools enforced this but I think it opens the door to a lot of issues.

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking someone to clarify between personal beliefs and religious beliefs. Nor do I think that would question the legitimacy of their religion. If they can prove that there is a religious reason so be it. The law is on their side.

[Cherhorowitz]

That wasn't my point. My point is what do you do once someone says they are not vaccinating for religious reasons? As mentioned before, people have and do get around vaccinating all the time by claiming religious exemption. You need to tread very lightly when questioning someone about their beliefs.

[mskatiep]

Jan 28, 2015 20:22:11 GMT -5 Cherhorowitz said:

That wasn't my point. My point is what do you do once someone says they are not vaccinating for religious reasons? As mentioned before, people have and do get around vaccinating all the time by claiming religious exemption. You need to tread very lightly when questioning someone about their beliefs.

We question beliefs and opinions everyday. Why is this any different to ask someone to sign a document or provide some proof that they are not vaxing for religious reasons? No one will force them to go against their religion.

[Deleted]

Jan 28, 2015 15:43:33 GMT -5 shanbp said:

Would any of you feel differently if the child was not vaccinated based on true religious beliefs vs a loose "personal objection"

I had a history/civics teacher in high school that frequently said "one persons rights end where another's begin". That popped into my head when reading this. 

Parents have a legal right to choose whether or not to vaccinate their children, fine. But they don't have a right to endanger other children. So I still think that schools should be able to keep out unvaccinated children for the protection of others, whether the reason for not vaccinating is religion or not. 

[mskatiep]

Jan 28, 2015 20:47:57 GMT -5 chrisy01 said:

Jan 28, 2015 20:42:06 GMT -5 mskatiep said:

We question beliefs and opinions everyday. Why is this any different to ask someone to sign a document or provide some proof that they are not vaxing for religious reasons? No one will force them to go against their religion.

I think what Foxy is getting at is since most of the religions that are anti-vax are not main stream it could appear that the government (ie the school systems) are picking on them.

edit: With this post I'm no longer a noob!

If the religious belief exemption is honored, how would anyone be picking on them?? Just by asking them to sign a document?

[Cherhorowitz]

I think you are still missing my point.

First, yes, "we" question beliefs and opinions everyday. I am uncomfortable with a non-religious school "questioning" beliefs.

Most people get around vaxxing through a religious exemption. Hypothetically, I want to enroll my kid in a school and I don't vax. I tell the school I don't vax because I worship Blender God and I am a worshiper of Blenderism. The school has never heard of Blenderism. I tell them that Blenderism is a very small religion and they won't find any information about it but I, and my family, are devout Blenders and vaccinating goes against our beliefs. The school may suspect that I am making this up, but how do they push the issue? This is my point. Schools have heard of Christian Science. But, what about smaller religions? And what kind of proof do we need? Maybe I practice Christian Science, but do you need my attendance at church every weekend? Are we going to allow schools to decide if you are "religious enough" not to vaccinate? I am uncomfortable with a school being the judge and jury on one's religion. Forcing parents to explain their religious beliefs and potentially have a school question or doubt one's religion could be a nightmare.

FWIW, I 100% would like all children vaccinated. I just get uncomfortable giving a school district the freedom to inquire about one's religion.

[Cherhorowitz]

Jan 28, 2015 20:53:40 GMT -5 mskatiep said:

Jan 28, 2015 20:47:57 GMT -5 chrisy01 said:

I think what Foxy is getting at is since most of the religions that are anti-vax are not main stream it could appear that the government (ie the school systems) are picking on them.

edit: With this post I'm no longer a noob!

If the religious belief exemption is honored, how would anyone be picking on them?? Just by asking them to sign a document?

People that don't vaccinate already sign a document saying their personal beliefs don't allow them to vaccinate. This is taking it one step further and asking for proof that people actually practice said religion.

[Cherhorowitz]

@mellocello , except some people can't vaccinate for religious or medical reasons.

I agree that people abuse this system and this is why we are in the position we are in. I don't have the right answer. I am just pointing out flaws.

[Deleted]

mellochello I agree with you. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of sending my vaccinated child to school and not having any idea if there are unvaccinated students there.

Cherhorowitz I also see your point. I don't think the schools/government should have the right to force someone to prove their religious beliefs or participation in a religion.

This is such a complex issue. All of the private schools here that I have researched require students to be vaccinated according to the CDC shedule. V will be going to private school, at the very least for elementary. Knowing that they require vaccination gives me peace of mind.

[mskatiep]

Cherhorowitz my point is that no one is pushing that issue or asking the school to make determinations like that. Signing a waiver should/has been enough to get a religious exemption. Personal beliefs are not protected by law, so the California system should be tightened up.

Although, I do think that if not vaccinating is actually a religious belief, what is the harm in asking for a signature on a legal document stating so. I think people would be less likely to abuse the system if there were (at least the appearance of) legal repercussions to lying about religious exemption.

[Cherhorowitz]

Jan 28, 2015 21:04:00 GMT -5 mellochello said:

Jan 28, 2015 21:02:26 GMT -5 Cherhorowitz said:

@mellocello , except some people can't vaccinate for religious or medical reasons.

I agree that people abuse this system and this is why we are in the position we are in. I don't have the right answer. I am just pointing out flaws.

Private or home school could be an option for those.

I'm just not comfortable not knowing who isn't vaccinated at my child's public school. In my perfect world, you would either have to vaccinate or disclose that you have not done so.

Obviously my world is far from perfect.

Well, you are opening another whole can of problems if you are going to tell a child with medical issues that a public school district has no obligation to educate said child and that they are better suited for private or home school.

And again, you can't tell other parents about another student's medical history.

[Cherhorowitz]

I get it, @mellocello , there's no right answer. Like I said, slippery slope.

[Cherhorowitz]

Jan 28, 2015 21:20:50 GMT -5 mskatiep said:

Cherhorowitz my point is that no one is pushing that issue or asking the school to make determinations like that. Signing a waiver should/has been enough to get a religious exemption. Personal beliefs are not protected by law, so the California system should be tightened up.

You can't say that the system needs to be tightened up and that schools shouldn't make determinations like that in the same breath. In order to tighten up the system, school districts would have to make determinations like that.

[mskatiep]

Jan 28, 2015 21:30:55 GMT -5 Cherhorowitz said:

Jan 28, 2015 21:20:50 GMT -5 mskatiep said:

Cherhorowitz my point is that no one is pushing that issue or asking the school to make determinations like that. Signing a waiver should/has been enough to get a religious exemption. Personal beliefs are not protected by law, so the California system should be tightened up.

You can't say that the system needs to be tightened up and that schools shouldn't make determinations like that in the same breath. In order to tighten up the system, school districts would have to make determinations like that.

In California they are personal belief exemptions NOT necessarily religious beliefs. Yes, I can say that the personal belief exemptions can be tightened without impeding on religious beliefs. Someone believing that the moon is blue doesn't mean they can not vax. A personal belief should not trump other people's safety.

[klongoria11]

Basically we can't segregate the anti-vaxers from the vaxers. It is discriminatory. We just have to wait for the anti-vaxxers to come to their senses and start vaxing their kids. Until then we just have to hope that none of their children get our children sick. Or we just have to homeschool our own children.

[debatethis]

Jan 28, 2015 20:22:11 GMT -5 Cherhorowitz said:

That wasn't my point. My point is what do you do once someone says they are not vaccinating for religious reasons? As mentioned before, people have and do get around vaccinating all the time by claiming religious exemption. You need to tread very lightly when questioning someone about their beliefs.

I could be totally off base on this but from what I've understood out of multiple recent court cases*, the State(s) has/have decided that those religious beliefs have a very firm boundary as they pertain to minors. It would be MY hope that the same case law which has decided that parents have a minimum duty of medical care for their children would be applied to vaccines as well.

*I'm thinking of court cases in (I think?) Idaho and Pennsylvania where parents refused medical care for their children due to "religious beliefs" and the courts sided against the parents, but there are a few other states which have had similar cases so details are fuzzy.

[debatethis]

Jan 28, 2015 20:53:40 GMT -5 mskatiep said:

Jan 28, 2015 20:47:57 GMT -5 chrisy01 said:

I think what Foxy is getting at is since most of the religions that are anti-vax are not main stream it could appear that the government (ie the school systems) are picking on them.

edit: With this post I'm no longer a noob!

If the religious belief exemption is honored, how would anyone be picking on them?? Just by asking them to sign a document?

Ask Wheaton College. They filed a lawsuit saying that just signing a WAIVER allowing their employees to go elsewhere to get BC violates their religious beliefs. Yeahhhhh.

[Cherhorowitz]

Jan 28, 2015 21:38:10 GMT -5 mskatiep said:

Jan 28, 2015 21:30:55 GMT -5 Cherhorowitz said:

You can't say that the system needs to be tightened up and that schools shouldn't make determinations like that in the same breath. In order to tighten up the system, school districts would have to make determinations like that.

In California they are personal belief exemptions NOT necessarily religious beliefs. Yes, I can say that the personal belief exemptions can be tightened without impeding on religious beliefs. Someone believing that the moon is blue doesn't mean they can not vax. A personal belief should not trump other people's safety.

We're going in circles. This goes back to my original point. People will say that their religious beliefs prohibit them from vaxxing, as mentioned before, you are then putting a school district in the position of deciding what's "religious" enough.

More so, this is the current personal belief exemption form in California: eziz.org/assets/docs/CDPH-8262.pdf

The form is titled "personal beliefs" but the person has to check that they practice a religion that prohibits them from vaxxing. It doesn't give people the option of saying the moon is blue, it gives people the option of saying their religion doesn't allow it. I know California is one of a small fraction of states that allow for a "personal belief" exemption, but I would wager they use that term to cover their bases for the philosophical beliefs that aren't defined as a religion.

[Cherhorowitz]

Jan 28, 2015 21:48:04 GMT -5 debatethis said:

Jan 28, 2015 20:22:11 GMT -5 Cherhorowitz said:

That wasn't my point. My point is what do you do once someone says they are not vaccinating for religious reasons? As mentioned before, people have and do get around vaccinating all the time by claiming religious exemption. You need to tread very lightly when questioning someone about their beliefs.

I could be totally off base on this but from what I've understood out of multiple recent court cases*, the State(s) has/have decided that those religious beliefs have a very firm boundary as they pertain to minors. It would be MY hope that the same case law which has decided that parents have a minimum duty of medical care for their children would be applied to vaccines as well.

*I'm thinking of court cases in (I think?) Idaho and Pennsylvania where parents refused medical care for their children due to "religious beliefs" and the courts sided against the parents, but there are a few other states which have had similar cases so details are fuzzy.

If you are thinking of the cases I am thinking of, the state has intervened because the child faced immediate harm. I have a hard time believing that argument would hold up against a parent refusing to vaccinate.

[mskatiep]

Jan 28, 2015 21:55:18 GMT -5 Cherhorowitz said:

Jan 28, 2015 21:38:10 GMT -5 mskatiep said:

In California they are personal belief exemptions NOT necessarily religious beliefs. Yes, I can say that the personal belief exemptions can be tightened without impeding on religious beliefs. Someone believing that the moon is blue doesn't mean they can not vax. A personal belief should not trump other people's safety.

We're going in circles. This goes back to my original point. People will say that their religious beliefs prohibit them from vaxxing, as mentioned before, you are then putting a school district in the position of deciding what's "religious" enough.

More so, this is the current personal belief exemption form in California: eziz.org/assets/docs/CDPH-8262.pdf

The form is titled "personal beliefs" but the person has to check that they practice a religion that prohibits them from vaxxing. It doesn't give people the option of saying the moon is blue, it gives people the option of saying their religion doesn't allow it. I know California is one of a small fraction of states that allow for a "personal belief" exemption, but I would wager they use that term to cover their bases for the philosophical beliefs that aren't defined as a religion.

Correct me if I'm wrong but section B of that form says check one of two boxes. First box being that you know the risks of not vaxing, and the second stating that you are not vaxing for religious reasons.

[Cherhorowitz]

Jan 28, 2015 22:03:19 GMT -5 mskatiep said:

Jan 28, 2015 21:55:18 GMT -5 Cherhorowitz said:

We're going in circles. This goes back to my original point. People will say that their religious beliefs prohibit them from vaxxing, as mentioned before, you are then putting a school district in the position of deciding what's "religious" enough.

More so, this is the current personal belief exemption form in California: eziz.org/assets/docs/CDPH-8262.pdf

The form is titled "personal beliefs" but the person has to check that they practice a religion that prohibits them from vaxxing. It doesn't give people the option of saying the moon is blue, it gives people the option of saying their religion doesn't allow it. I know California is one of a small fraction of states that allow for a "personal belief" exemption, but I would wager they use that term to cover their bases for the philosophical beliefs that aren't defined as a religion.

Correct me if I'm wrong but section B of that form says check one of two boxes. First box being that you know the risks of not vaxing, and the second stating that you are not vaxing for religious reasons.

Yes. But again, this goes back to my example with Blenderism. Let's say I tell the school that Blenderism isn't a religion, but its a small philosophical movement that I believe in. Therefore, it is not a religion. You are putting a school in a position to start questioning someone's beliefs. I mean, you have to see there is a serious gray area here.

[JEMandtheHolograms]

Do the Blenders worship the goddess margaritas?!

I get what Cfox is saying. I'm curious though-- sacrificial ceremonies are not a protected religious freedom- could the same logic apply to not vaxing?!

[mskatiep]

Jan 28, 2015 22:12:22 GMT -5 Cherhorowitz said:

Jan 28, 2015 22:03:19 GMT -5 mskatiep said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but section B of that form says check one of two boxes. First box being that you know the risks of not vaxing, and the second stating that you are not vaxing for religious reasons.

Yes. But again, this goes back to my example with Blenderism. Let's say I tell the school that Blenderism isn't a religion, but its a small philosophical movement that I believe in. Therefore, it is not a religion. You are putting a school in a position to start questioning someone's beliefs. I mean, you have to see there is a serious gray area here.

If it is not a religion then it shouldn't be protected under religious freedom. When did philosophy start being considered religion??

The form doesn't even require someone to name or explain their religion. If they believe in blenderism, then check the religion box, and no questions asked. The form states that they do not even need a medical professional's signature if it is a religious belief.

I don't think it is a gray area. Religion =/= personal beliefs. But if you make up your own religion that encompasses your "personal beliefs" no one can really stop you.

[Cherhorowitz]

I have had multiple margaritas tonight so I could buy into Blenderism.

Elaborate on taxing. I am not sure I follow.

[JEMandtheHolograms]

Taxing = vaxing
Auto correct fail

[Cherhorowitz]

Jan 28, 2015 22:21:42 GMT -5 mskatiep said:

Jan 28, 2015 22:12:22 GMT -5 Cherhorowitz said:

Yes. But again, this goes back to my example with Blenderism. Let's say I tell the school that Blenderism isn't a religion, but its a small philosophical movement that I believe in. Therefore, it is not a religion. You are putting a school in a position to start questioning someone's beliefs. I mean, you have to see there is a serious gray area here.

If it is not a religion then it shouldn't be protected under religious freedom. When did philosophy start being considered religion??

The form doesn't even require someone to name or explain their religion. If they believe in blenderism, then check the religion box, and no questions asked. The form states that they do not even need a medical professional's signature if it is a religious belief.

I don't think it is a gray area. Religion =/= personal beliefs. But if you make up your own religion that encompasses your "personal beliefs" no one can really stop you.

I am in agreement with you. The thread was starting to talk about how those claiming religious exemption should have to prove it. This is my point. Even if I invent Blenderism, if we start making people "prove" their religion, we are going to have a problem. And therein lies the gray area.

[sv917]

Philosophical movements aren't protected under the constitution. I can be fired from a job for being a vegan. I can't be fired because I'm a Hindu who doesn't eat meat. I get what you are saying & it does make me a little uncomfortable to have the government judging religions, but it's not like that doesn't happen in other areas.

Also, I've been praying to the blender gods, but I still don't have a margarita. I'm beginning to question my faith.

[Cherhorowitz]

Jan 28, 2015 22:26:01 GMT -5 JEMandtheHolograms said:

Taxing = vaxing
Auto correct fail

Dammit. I had an argument about the Amish ready to go.

Let's ignore the personal belief exemption thing. I am getting away from my initial point. Which is, even if we do away with personal belief exemption, people will just check "religious exemption" (which has been pointed out in this thread) and if we need to start cracking down on these people, school districts will end up questioning people on their beliefs. Which I am uncomfortable with.