The Court’s Religious Jurisprudence and Vaccines
In my last post, I pointed out that for over a century, for good reasons, courts have upheld school immunization mandates, including in the face of challenges based on the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. Two federal Court of Appeals cases
Comments
“Religions are all based on mere superstition.”
Religions are based on various things.
Posted by: Joe | Jul 12, 2018 2:39:17 PM
Dorit , I thought that you refer to the whole sentiment formed by various cases shown recently . However , in a way or other , a case shall or should reach the court finally one may presume , and in court , it is hard to see , how the strict issue , stemming from vaccination ( vaccination solely ) can be overcome or reversed in favor of religious issues or ground ( one needs to be hell of a cunning lawyer for it ) . One may presume indeed , that officials in the public service may manifest implicit hostility , but judges , it is hard to see how. But , you do agree with it , it seems so at least ( or simply as you claim , you didn’t refer to judges simply .Although , at the end of the post , you have stated : ” potentially putting the public health of communities at substantial risk ” but how I was wondering if binding jurisprudence is made by judges simply ).
Thanks
Posted by: El roam | Jul 10, 2018 2:53:25 PM
A. In Brown v. Smith not all plaintiffs claimed religious objections, but because a few did, the court addressed the issue.
B. The ones found to have shown hostility in Masterpiece Cakeshop were, as you said, the committee members. My comparison to the Michigan was to suggest that a person could claim the Department of Health officials showed hostility. It’s not about the judges. It’s about whether the Officials in the health department who conducted the educational sessions showed hostility to religious objections. It’s easy to read the complainant in Nikolao as claiming that.
Posted by: Dorit Reiss | Jul 10, 2018 2:29:00 PM
Dorit , in Brown V. Smith , one should notice , that the religious issue , didn’t touch all plaintiffs there . I quote :
” The other three plaintiffs allege nothing about any religious basis for their objection to vaccination . A belief that is ” philosophical and personal rather than religious ….does not rise to the demands of the Religion clauses “
But concerning your argument , that Masterpiece can be used further in support for opposing vaccination , I don’t see really right now how exactly . In Masterpiece , it could be alleged , and proven prima facie , that the committee members , manifested apparently , hostility towards the owner of the bakery . But it is hard to see , how the judges manifested the slightest hostility . The issue has far greater more consensus. Hostility towards religion , can’t be proven here , but , concrete discretion , here I quote :
” The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death . ”
End of quotation :
Can it be said that , hostility is manifested so ?? Hard to buy it !! It looks like the issue of vaccination , and public health occupied their mind , over any disrespect to religion.
Thanks
Posted by: El roam | Jul 10, 2018 2:23:57 PM
Note that all states have medical exemptions. When there is a science-based reason that a child not be vaccinated, that child can and should be medically exempt.
One important reason for strong school mandates is to protect those vulnerable children who cannot be safely vaccinated and rely on herd immunity for their safety.
That is somewhat tangential to the religious question, though.
Posted by: Dorit Reiss | Jul 10, 2018 12:27:53 PM
Religions are all based on mere superstition. We face the ironic situation where vaccination can be refused based on superstition but not on science and reason.
Posted by: jimbino | Jul 10, 2018 12:25:04 PM