Exactly how many religions are against vaccinations? Most religions were founded and their holy books written well before vaccinations were a thing.
Several Islamic sects prohibit medicines and procedures invented by infidels. There's loopholes, since a few hospitals in Pakistan have bullshitted just-different-enough versions of all kinds of stuff, but I don't know how many vaccines they've done this with or how available they are in the US. I've read about a Jewish denomination that requires the doctor to be Jewish, but that's not a particularly high barrier to get past.
If you tally them all up - the Wahabists and Christian Scientists and the extreme orthodox sects - they account for approximately none of the anti-vaxx nonsense. It's not just that none of these are especially large denominations (Christian Science is the largest one, with ~100,000 nominal members and the same attendance gap everyone else has once the Easter-and-Christmas crowd's guilt wears off), or that so many of them already home school or private school for other religious reasons. You still have to account for how many are actually strictly practicing - one of the reasons you don't hear that often about parents letting a baby die without medicine for religious reasons (and why it's so shocking when you do) is because most parents don't let their babies die. I've known a few Jehova's Witnesses, and when the cards were down, they signed the consent forms and just didn't tell their congregation that they'd received a transfusion during their surgery. Plenty of people believe very deeply in their religion, but I can never fault somebody for drawing the line at death.
I've known a few Jehova's Witnesses, and when the cards were down, they signed the consent forms and just didn't tell their congregation that they'd received a transfusion during their surgery. Plenty of people believe very deeply in their religion, but I can never fault somebody for drawing the line at death.
I can't (well, i could, but won't) fault anyone for not dying for their beliefs, and i definitely won't fault anyone for not letting their kids die for their beliefs.
I can, and will, however, fault people for continuing spreading those beliefs and contributing to other people, and worse, other peoples kids, dying for those beliefs.
Nyysjan on
+5
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Exactly how many religions are against vaccinations? Most religions were founded and their holy books written well before vaccinations were a thing.
It's more that people who don't want vaccines for whatever reason can use religion as a flimsy excuse that no one can really question because it's a matter of faith.
Pretty much the same as every other time religion is used as an excuse for [X].
Some religions do preach against some medical procedures, like Jehovah's Witnesses against blood transfusion and Scientologists against mental healthcare. But I've never heard of a religion preaching against a vaccination. So in all seriousness, are there any?
The Dutch Reformed Church apparently, based on the belief that it interferes with the relationship with God.
Also Christian Scientists tend to dip in that well since they believe prayer without medication is best, but they'll grumble and do it if required by law.
The Department of Justice has taken up the case of an anti-vaxxer in Wisconsin… because the night is dark and full of terrors.
Barnell Williams isn’t the chemtrail/vaccines-cause-autism/vast-government-conspiracy flavor of anti-vax foolishness. She’s the religious/body-is-temple/pray-the-flu-away kind of nut. This distinction doesn’t matter to the viruses, but probably does to the Justice Department. Anywhere somebody’s deeply held religious belief is in the position to hurt or humiliate others, the United States Department of Justice is there to provide legal cover.
It’s fashionable to think that anti-vaxxers are only hurting themselves and their children, but that’s not how communicable disease works. Williams refused to get a flu shot, which seems like a de minimis exercise of personal stupidity… until I tell you that she WORKS IN A NURSING HOME. In terms of natural predators for old people, the flu is right up there with step-ladders and the QVC channel. You shouldn’t be allowed to bus tables at Denny’s, unless you’ve had your flu shot.
Nonetheless, the Ozaukee County’s Lasata Care Center, which is owned by the county, had a process for objecting to the flu shot. Essentially, you had to get a letter from your clergy that you have so much Holy Ghost Power that the flu is afraid of you. Then they fold the note into the shape of a SARS mask and you’re good to go. OR SOMETHING. I swear to Christ if I tried to store a family member in a nursing home and they died from the flu because some Jesus-freak didn’t get their shot, I’d sue the county for the rest of my natural life.
So in the eyes of the DoJ, one woman's beliefs trump the safety of all the residents of the nursing home where she worked.
I feel like the lesson of the Trump era is going to be that if you are stupid enough for long enough in a sufficiently uncompromising way, eventually you win because it’s so much easier to destroy than build.
That sums up my feelings on the Tea Party/MAGA/religious right perfectly.
That's probably more properly phrased as pro-RFRA but that is still pretty fucking batshit. Non-vaccination of health workers serving a vulnerable population is in no way a reasonable accommodation. I'd probably go with malpractice or possibly manslaughter or some other m word.
That's probably more properly phrased as pro-RFRA but that is still pretty fucking batshit. Non-vaccination of health workers serving a vulnerable population is in no way a reasonable accommodation. I'd probably go with malpractice or possibly manslaughter or some other m word.
motherfucking idiots?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
+18
Options
Blackhawk1313Demon Hunter for HireTime RiftRegistered Userregular
No, sadly. There's a dark intelligence at work here. Ever since the "religious right" lost the battle to be openly bigoted, they shifted tack to instead use freedom of religion as justification for their bigotry. This case is part of that argument - the woman's religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, and as such supercede any other considerations (like, say, the health of the residents of the nursing home.)
No, sadly. There's a dark intelligence at work here. Ever since the "religious right" lost the battle to be openly bigoted, they shifted tack to instead use freedom of religion as justification for their bigotry. This case is part of that argument - the woman's religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, and as such supercede any other considerations (like, say, the health of the residents of the nursing home.)
Just need some fiesty residents to sue her or the home on freedom of association grounds, they don't want to associate with any unvaccinated threats to their health.
No, sadly. There's a dark intelligence at work here. Ever since the "religious right" lost the battle to be openly bigoted, they shifted tack to instead use freedom of religion as justification for their bigotry. This case is part of that argument - the woman's religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, and as such supercede any other considerations (like, say, the health of the residents of the nursing home.)
Just need some fiesty residents to sue her or the home on freedom of association grounds, they don't want to associate with any unvaccinated threats to their health.
Sue for malpractice for not taking reasonable steps to mitigate known infection vectors.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
No, sadly. There's a dark intelligence at work here. Ever since the "religious right" lost the battle to be openly bigoted, they shifted tack to instead use freedom of religion as justification for their bigotry. This case is part of that argument - the woman's religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, and as such supercede any other considerations (like, say, the health of the residents of the nursing home.)
Just need some fiesty residents to sue her or the home on freedom of association grounds, they don't want to associate with any unvaccinated threats to their health.
Wouldn't work - this isn't about upholding the First Amendment, it's about creating an unassailable position that bigotry is protected as long as you can drape religion over it. The reason that the DoJ got involved most likely is because a ruling that yes, the nursing home was within their rights to force her to get the shot or lose her job would open a chink in their armor, establishing that religious freedom had a limit to what conduct it could cover. So we now have the DoJ taking an anti-vax position to protect that argument.
No, sadly. There's a dark intelligence at work here. Ever since the "religious right" lost the battle to be openly bigoted, they shifted tack to instead use freedom of religion as justification for their bigotry. This case is part of that argument - the woman's religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, and as such supercede any other considerations (like, say, the health of the residents of the nursing home.)
Just need some fiesty residents to sue her or the home on freedom of association grounds, they don't want to associate with any unvaccinated threats to their health.
Wouldn't work - this isn't about upholding the First Amendment, it's about creating an unassailable position that bigotry is protected as long as you can drape religion over it. The reason that the DoJ got involved most likely is because a ruling that yes, the nursing home was within their rights to force her to get the shot or lose her job would open a chink in their armor, establishing that religious freedom had a limit to what conduct it could cover. So we now have the DoJ taking an anti-vax position to protect that argument.
The sixth actually just smacked the shit out of the RFRA on trans rights so there is hope the courts aren't going to let this go too far.
Also in this case there was some mention that the nursing home had found her some position that was fine even unvaccinated but that was apparently not a reasonable accommodation or something stupid.
Can you still get a HPV vaccine as an adult? The article never encourages adult men to get vaccinated, and I seem to remember the initial drive was mostly for school-age girls to get vaxxed?
No, sadly. There's a dark intelligence at work here. Ever since the "religious right" lost the battle to be openly bigoted, they shifted tack to instead use freedom of religion as justification for their bigotry. This case is part of that argument - the woman's religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, and as such supercede any other considerations (like, say, the health of the residents of the nursing home.)
Just need some fiesty residents to sue her or the home on freedom of association grounds, they don't want to associate with any unvaccinated threats to their health.
Wouldn't work - this isn't about upholding the First Amendment, it's about creating an unassailable position that bigotry is protected as long as you can drape religion over it. The reason that the DoJ got involved most likely is because a ruling that yes, the nursing home was within their rights to force her to get the shot or lose her job would open a chink in their armor, establishing that religious freedom had a limit to what conduct it could cover. So we now have the DoJ taking an anti-vax position to protect that argument.
The number of insane privileged anti-science people who get in to healthcare really makes vaccines a rough fight for the industry, but my employer requires you get a flu vaccine or wear a surgical mask 100% of the time.
People have been complaining that wearing the mask is unfair, because it singles them out "for their beliefs". I'm fine with that, really. Your beliefs puts immuno compromised people who are already in a hospital at risk. If it was against someone's beliefs that people should wash their hands between patient encounters then there'd be no issue with firing them. I don't know why vaccines get some magical status.
Can you still get a HPV vaccine as an adult? The article never encourages adult men to get vaccinated, and I seem to remember the initial drive was mostly for school-age girls to get vaxxed?
Yes, you can, though you might encounter some resistance.
One study early in the FDA approval process showed an increase incidence of cervical cancer rates in a group of older women who got the vaccine. It wasn't clear at the time whether that was just random chance or if the vaccine was a risk factor. Since then, no other studies have replicated that result, and it's generally considered to be safe for older
It is also generally safe and effective for men.
That said, real health practitioners don't always keep up on the latest and greatest research, and they are understandably cautious. So people who don't conform to the "women and girls ages 9-26" demographic might face an uphill battle. In most cases, they will not be covered by US insurance and you'll have to pay cash. You might need to call around to find a health practitioner willing to give you the vaccine.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Also, just in general, the state of affairs regarding HPV detection and treatment is kinda shitty.
There's no widely-available test for it in men.
The "test" for it in women isn't a test for HPV directly, it's a pap smear, which is looking for abnormal cervical cells.
There's some unknown number of asymptomatic carriers. How many? Nooooooobody knooooooowwwwssssss ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Most of the estimates you see online for the number of asymptomatic carriers are based on, to put it lightly, loose methodology.
Maybe a healthy immune system can clear the virus, making it a temporary infection. Or maybe not. Maybe in some people and not in others. Maybe some varieties of the virus can be cleared and not others.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Yeah you're looking at almost a $500 out of pocket to get the vaccine, so you can imagine why people who are outside the coverage of insurance would probably not really seek it out.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I swear, you'd think the article critical about people's perception of getting a vaccine for a sexually transmitted virus would mention that you can get it done as an adult. (Unless I am being dense, but I just skimmed it a second time and can't find it.)
So you can get the vaccine as an adult? It seems like something worth getting! Even for $500. Hell, and as we've discussed with vaccines before, if other people aren't getting it it still helps them if I get it, because we're one step closer to herd immunity.
No, sadly. There's a dark intelligence at work here. Ever since the "religious right" lost the battle to be openly bigoted, they shifted tack to instead use freedom of religion as justification for their bigotry. This case is part of that argument - the woman's religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, and as such supercede any other considerations (like, say, the health of the residents of the nursing home.)
I'm not an expert on this, but "freedom of religion" just means you're allowed to freely choose your own religion, right? Not force everyone else to adhere to it?
No, sadly. There's a dark intelligence at work here. Ever since the "religious right" lost the battle to be openly bigoted, they shifted tack to instead use freedom of religion as justification for their bigotry. This case is part of that argument - the woman's religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, and as such supercede any other considerations (like, say, the health of the residents of the nursing home.)
I'm not an expert on this, but "freedom of religion" just means you're allowed to freely choose your own religion, right? Not force everyone else to adhere to it?
It used to be this yes. But the current hard line thought is Freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Basically they want their cake and to eat it too. They want to be free to pursue their faith and impose it on you as well regardless of what you believe.
Crazily enough its predominantly one religion doing this in america. And its terrifying to think this is now being applied to vaccinations, let alone vaccinations for healthcare workers.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
No, sadly. There's a dark intelligence at work here. Ever since the "religious right" lost the battle to be openly bigoted, they shifted tack to instead use freedom of religion as justification for their bigotry. This case is part of that argument - the woman's religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, and as such supercede any other considerations (like, say, the health of the residents of the nursing home.)
I'm not an expert on this, but "freedom of religion" just means you're allowed to freely choose your own religion, right? Not force everyone else to adhere to it?
It depends on if you're a Christian or not.
If you are, then it means you can force your religion on everybody. If you're not, then you're free to shut up about it and give no outward signs of your religious affiliation or lack thereof.
I thought this was obvious by now?
In fairness, you can usually replace "Christian" with "majority religion" in most places.
No, sadly. There's a dark intelligence at work here. Ever since the "religious right" lost the battle to be openly bigoted, they shifted tack to instead use freedom of religion as justification for their bigotry. This case is part of that argument - the woman's religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, and as such supercede any other considerations (like, say, the health of the residents of the nursing home.)
I'm not an expert on this, but "freedom of religion" just means you're allowed to freely choose your own religion, right? Not force everyone else to adhere to it?
The phrase that has been used is "Freedom of Religion is a shield, not a sword."
The current issue is if your job involves things that are required by law as part of that job but are forbidden by your religion. We don't want folks not hiring Jews because they're Jews but is it alright to not hire (kosher) Jews because the position is bacon chef? What if they're just a desert chef and one desert involves bacon? Further, can their religious prohibition about the inappropriateness of eating bacon mean they shouldn't have to prepare bacon?
Except of course the actual issues revolve around life and death medical issues instead of a Turkey Club that is missing some crispy cooked pig.
No, sadly. There's a dark intelligence at work here. Ever since the "religious right" lost the battle to be openly bigoted, they shifted tack to instead use freedom of religion as justification for their bigotry. This case is part of that argument - the woman's religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, and as such supercede any other considerations (like, say, the health of the residents of the nursing home.)
I'm not an expert on this, but "freedom of religion" just means you're allowed to freely choose your own religion, right? Not force everyone else to adhere to it?
The phrase that has been used is "Freedom of Religion is a shield, not a sword."
The current issue is if your job involves things that are required by law as part of that job but are forbidden by your religion. We don't want folks not hiring Jews because they're Jews but is it alright to not hire (kosher) Jews because the position is bacon chef? What if they're just a desert chef and one desert involves bacon? Further, can their religious prohibition about the inappropriateness of eating bacon mean they shouldn't have to prepare bacon?
Except of course the actual issues revolve around life and death medical issues instead of a Turkey Club that is missing some crispy cooked pig.
It's great how we as a society has evolved to the point where we can just deny eachother medical care to feel morally superior for no reason.
No, sadly. There's a dark intelligence at work here. Ever since the "religious right" lost the battle to be openly bigoted, they shifted tack to instead use freedom of religion as justification for their bigotry. This case is part of that argument - the woman's religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, and as such supercede any other considerations (like, say, the health of the residents of the nursing home.)
I'm not an expert on this, but "freedom of religion" just means you're allowed to freely choose your own religion, right? Not force everyone else to adhere to it?
The phrase that has been used is "Freedom of Religion is a shield, not a sword."
The current issue is if your job involves things that are required by law as part of that job but are forbidden by your religion. We don't want folks not hiring Jews because they're Jews but is it alright to not hire (kosher) Jews because the position is bacon chef? What if they're just a desert chef and one desert involves bacon? Further, can their religious prohibition about the inappropriateness of eating bacon mean they shouldn't have to prepare bacon?
Except of course the actual issues revolve around life and death medical issues instead of a Turkey Club that is missing some crispy cooked pig.
It's great how we as a society has evolved to the point where we can just deny eachother medical care to feel morally superior for no reason.
If someone has a religious objection to a part of a job, that's all very good and holy, if and only if they acknowledge that they will need to take a different job. You don't get Amish people applying to be computer programmers and then complaining that their religious objections to technology mean they can't touch computers. You don't get Muslims applying for jobs as pig farmers and then complaining that their beliefs mean they can't touch a pig. They simply avoid those jobs. There is no reason why Christians can't do the same.
No, sadly. There's a dark intelligence at work here. Ever since the "religious right" lost the battle to be openly bigoted, they shifted tack to instead use freedom of religion as justification for their bigotry. This case is part of that argument - the woman's religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, and as such supercede any other considerations (like, say, the health of the residents of the nursing home.)
Just need some fiesty residents to sue her or the home on freedom of association grounds, they don't want to associate with any unvaccinated threats to their health.
Wouldn't work - this isn't about upholding the First Amendment, it's about creating an unassailable position that bigotry is protected as long as you can drape religion over it. The reason that the DoJ got involved most likely is because a ruling that yes, the nursing home was within their rights to force her to get the shot or lose her job would open a chink in their armor, establishing that religious freedom had a limit to what conduct it could cover. So we now have the DoJ taking an anti-vax position to protect that argument.
The sixth actually just smacked the shit out of the RFRA on trans rights so there is hope the courts aren't going to let this go too far.
Also in this case there was some mention that the nursing home had found her some position that was fine even unvaccinated but that was apparently not a reasonable accommodation or something stupid.
Exactly how many religions are against vaccinations? Most religions were founded and their holy books written well before vaccinations were a thing.
It's more that people who don't want vaccines for whatever reason can use religion as a flimsy excuse that no one can really question because it's a matter of faith.
Pretty much the same as every other time religion is used as an excuse for [X].
Some religions do preach against some medical procedures, like Jehovah's Witnesses against blood transfusion and Scientologists against mental healthcare. But I've never heard of a religion preaching against a vaccination. So in all seriousness, are there any?
The Dutch Reformed Church apparently, based on the belief that it interferes with the relationship with God.
Also Christian Scientists tend to dip in that well since they believe prayer without medication is best, but they'll grumble and do it if required by law.
Heck, I went to a catholic school where half the teachers were actual Franciscan monks who had actual fucking frocks they wore on Sundays, and the school had a vaccination program going where parents just had to sign a paper that the school gave to the kids and the school would take care of coordinating dates and having doctors come to the school during mandatory class hours to vaccinate everyone.
The idea that christians would be inherently against vaccines on grounds of religion is so damn weird to me.
This is literally saying "we think religious beliefs are more important than human lives."
I wonder if they'll change their tune when their kids die from a preventable disease, or if they'll just chalk it up to Gods will. I've noticed that a lot of people tend to change their minds when they themselves experience misfortune.
This is literally saying "we think religious beliefs are more important than human lives."
That's pretty much the point of religion, and has always been the case. The stuff that God says is more important than what happens to people, because ultimately it's all for the greater good in the end.
In this case it's pretty extreme, as it's a niche group arguing something that doesn't seem to be a part of their religion (or just trying to use religion to fight for some other belief), but fundamentally it's not that different from religion asking you to make sacrifices or have faith that something seemingly bad happening to someone else is part of God's complex and intricate plan.
It's just that the people doing the 'sacrifice' are other people here, which is why this is a stupid angle for the supposedly secular Government to take.
No, sadly. There's a dark intelligence at work here. Ever since the "religious right" lost the battle to be openly bigoted, they shifted tack to instead use freedom of religion as justification for their bigotry. This case is part of that argument - the woman's religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, and as such supercede any other considerations (like, say, the health of the residents of the nursing home.)
I'm not an expert on this, but "freedom of religion" just means you're allowed to freely choose your own religion, right? Not force everyone else to adhere to it?
The phrase that has been used is "Freedom of Religion is a shield, not a sword."
The current issue is if your job involves things that are required by law as part of that job but are forbidden by your religion. We don't want folks not hiring Jews because they're Jews but is it alright to not hire (kosher) Jews because the position is bacon chef? What if they're just a desert chef and one desert involves bacon? Further, can their religious prohibition about the inappropriateness of eating bacon mean they shouldn't have to prepare bacon?
Except of course the actual issues revolve around life and death medical issues instead of a Turkey Club that is missing some crispy cooked pig.
It's great how we as a society has evolved to the point where we can just deny eachother medical care to feel morally superior for no reason.
If someone has a religious objection to a part of a job, that's all very good and holy, if and only if they acknowledge that they will need to take a different job. You don't get Amish people applying to be computer programmers and then complaining that their religious objections to technology mean they can't touch computers. You don't get Muslims applying for jobs as pig farmers and then complaining that their beliefs mean they can't touch a pig. They simply avoid those jobs. There is no reason why Christians can't do the same.
This a fun game!
You don't get people who adhere to strict vows of chastity taking jobs as porn stars, and then complaining that their religious beliefs prevent them from having sex.
You don't get religious pacifists applying to the marine corps, and then complaining that their commanding officers want them to engage in violent acts.
You don't get Atheists joining the Catholic priesthood, and then complaining that their objections to religion mean that they can't deliver sacraments.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
This is literally saying "we think religious beliefs are more important than human lives."
What it's really saying is "We don't want to have to obey laws written by filthy fucking degenerate liberals".
This is a line of attack by the Right, through the courts, against progressive wins in the legislature and the courts and that's it. Just like Hobby Lobby. The entire point is to circumvent loses in the culture war by getting conservative justices to say that you can ignore the law if you use religion as an excuse.
Sure, you couldn't stop Obamacare and you couldn't repeal Obamacare, but you can ignore parts of it you hate because the courts say it's ok to do so as long as you say it's about religion.
They are pushing cases that build and reinforce this framework all over the place. They don't give a shit about this specific issue, only the precedent it helps enshrine.
shryke on
+20
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
This is literally saying "we think religious beliefs are more important than human lives."
I wonder if they'll change their tune when their kids die from a preventable disease, or if they'll just chalk it up to Gods will. I've noticed that a lot of people tend to change their minds when they themselves experience misfortune.
Also, just in general, the state of affairs regarding HPV detection and treatment is kinda shitty.
There's no widely-available test for it in men.
The "test" for it in women isn't a test for HPV directly, it's a pap smear, which is looking for abnormal cervical cells.
There's some unknown number of asymptomatic carriers. How many? Nooooooobody knooooooowwwwssssss ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Most of the estimates you see online for the number of asymptomatic carriers are based on, to put it lightly, loose methodology.
Maybe a healthy immune system can clear the virus, making it a temporary infection. Or maybe not. Maybe in some people and not in others. Maybe some varieties of the virus can be cleared and not others.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Three is, in fact, an hpv test. It is being done reflexively on positive pap tests in Ontario because if there is no high risk hpv present, further testing is not necessary. In addition, parts of eEurope are using it for primary screening in place of pap tests but it is a bit expensive.
Exactly how many religions are against vaccinations? Most religions were founded and their holy books written well before vaccinations were a thing.
It's more that people who don't want vaccines for whatever reason can use religion as a flimsy excuse that no one can really question because it's a matter of faith.
Pretty much the same as every other time religion is used as an excuse for [X].
Some religions do preach against some medical procedures, like Jehovah's Witnesses against blood transfusion and Scientologists against mental healthcare. But I've never heard of a religion preaching against a vaccination. So in all seriousness, are there any?
The Dutch Reformed Church apparently, based on the belief that it interferes with the relationship with God.
Also Christian Scientists tend to dip in that well since they believe prayer without medication is best, but they'll grumble and do it if required by law.
Heck, I went to a catholic school where half the teachers were actual Franciscan monks who had actual fucking frocks they wore on Sundays, and the school had a vaccination program going where parents just had to sign a paper that the school gave to the kids and the school would take care of coordinating dates and having doctors come to the school during mandatory class hours to vaccinate everyone.
The idea that christians would be inherently against vaccines on grounds of religion is so damn weird to me.
This religion thing is a new development. Christians have never been against vaccinations.
Jenny McCarthy got upset her son had autism and blamed it on vaccines and a lot of other parents got pissy about it in some weird version of libertarianism and looked for any way they could to not have to have their kids required to be vaccinated, and lo and behold look religious exemptions let them do that.
So they said "yes my religion doesn't allow me to vaccinate my kids" which has never really ever been a thing. The only ones that might be able to claim that historically before the wacky fucks of the 90s is the JWs and Amish.
Basically fuck that dude that blamed thimerosal for autism and fuck McCarthy and her indigo child nonsense that spawned the modern anti-vaccine movement.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Posts
Several Islamic sects prohibit medicines and procedures invented by infidels. There's loopholes, since a few hospitals in Pakistan have bullshitted just-different-enough versions of all kinds of stuff, but I don't know how many vaccines they've done this with or how available they are in the US. I've read about a Jewish denomination that requires the doctor to be Jewish, but that's not a particularly high barrier to get past.
If you tally them all up - the Wahabists and Christian Scientists and the extreme orthodox sects - they account for approximately none of the anti-vaxx nonsense. It's not just that none of these are especially large denominations (Christian Science is the largest one, with ~100,000 nominal members and the same attendance gap everyone else has once the Easter-and-Christmas crowd's guilt wears off), or that so many of them already home school or private school for other religious reasons. You still have to account for how many are actually strictly practicing - one of the reasons you don't hear that often about parents letting a baby die without medicine for religious reasons (and why it's so shocking when you do) is because most parents don't let their babies die. I've known a few Jehova's Witnesses, and when the cards were down, they signed the consent forms and just didn't tell their congregation that they'd received a transfusion during their surgery. Plenty of people believe very deeply in their religion, but I can never fault somebody for drawing the line at death.
I can't (well, i could, but won't) fault anyone for not dying for their beliefs, and i definitely won't fault anyone for not letting their kids die for their beliefs.
I can, and will, however, fault people for continuing spreading those beliefs and contributing to other people, and worse, other peoples kids, dying for those beliefs.
Is that new? I got all my vaccines.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
So in the eyes of the DoJ, one woman's beliefs trump the safety of all the residents of the nursing home where she worked.
What the fuck does not even start to cover this.
motherfucking idiots?
No, sadly. There's a dark intelligence at work here. Ever since the "religious right" lost the battle to be openly bigoted, they shifted tack to instead use freedom of religion as justification for their bigotry. This case is part of that argument - the woman's religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, and as such supercede any other considerations (like, say, the health of the residents of the nursing home.)
Just need some fiesty residents to sue her or the home on freedom of association grounds, they don't want to associate with any unvaccinated threats to their health.
MWO: Adamski
Sue for malpractice for not taking reasonable steps to mitigate known infection vectors.
Wouldn't work - this isn't about upholding the First Amendment, it's about creating an unassailable position that bigotry is protected as long as you can drape religion over it. The reason that the DoJ got involved most likely is because a ruling that yes, the nursing home was within their rights to force her to get the shot or lose her job would open a chink in their armor, establishing that religious freedom had a limit to what conduct it could cover. So we now have the DoJ taking an anti-vax position to protect that argument.
The sixth actually just smacked the shit out of the RFRA on trans rights so there is hope the courts aren't going to let this go too far.
Also in this case there was some mention that the nursing home had found her some position that was fine even unvaccinated but that was apparently not a reasonable accommodation or something stupid.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
Too bad HPV isn't covered by insurance past a young age.
The number of insane privileged anti-science people who get in to healthcare really makes vaccines a rough fight for the industry, but my employer requires you get a flu vaccine or wear a surgical mask 100% of the time.
People have been complaining that wearing the mask is unfair, because it singles them out "for their beliefs". I'm fine with that, really. Your beliefs puts immuno compromised people who are already in a hospital at risk. If it was against someone's beliefs that people should wash their hands between patient encounters then there'd be no issue with firing them. I don't know why vaccines get some magical status.
Yes, you can, though you might encounter some resistance.
One study early in the FDA approval process showed an increase incidence of cervical cancer rates in a group of older women who got the vaccine. It wasn't clear at the time whether that was just random chance or if the vaccine was a risk factor. Since then, no other studies have replicated that result, and it's generally considered to be safe for older
It is also generally safe and effective for men.
That said, real health practitioners don't always keep up on the latest and greatest research, and they are understandably cautious. So people who don't conform to the "women and girls ages 9-26" demographic might face an uphill battle. In most cases, they will not be covered by US insurance and you'll have to pay cash. You might need to call around to find a health practitioner willing to give you the vaccine.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
There's no widely-available test for it in men.
The "test" for it in women isn't a test for HPV directly, it's a pap smear, which is looking for abnormal cervical cells.
There's some unknown number of asymptomatic carriers. How many? Nooooooobody knooooooowwwwssssss ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Most of the estimates you see online for the number of asymptomatic carriers are based on, to put it lightly, loose methodology.
Maybe a healthy immune system can clear the virus, making it a temporary infection. Or maybe not. Maybe in some people and not in others. Maybe some varieties of the virus can be cleared and not others.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I swear, you'd think the article critical about people's perception of getting a vaccine for a sexually transmitted virus would mention that you can get it done as an adult. (Unless I am being dense, but I just skimmed it a second time and can't find it.)
I'm not an expert on this, but "freedom of religion" just means you're allowed to freely choose your own religion, right? Not force everyone else to adhere to it?
It used to be this yes. But the current hard line thought is Freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Basically they want their cake and to eat it too. They want to be free to pursue their faith and impose it on you as well regardless of what you believe.
Crazily enough its predominantly one religion doing this in america. And its terrifying to think this is now being applied to vaccinations, let alone vaccinations for healthcare workers.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It depends on if you're a Christian or not.
If you are, then it means you can force your religion on everybody. If you're not, then you're free to shut up about it and give no outward signs of your religious affiliation or lack thereof.
I thought this was obvious by now?
Edit: I am, of course, being facetious.
The phrase that has been used is "Freedom of Religion is a shield, not a sword."
The current issue is if your job involves things that are required by law as part of that job but are forbidden by your religion. We don't want folks not hiring Jews because they're Jews but is it alright to not hire (kosher) Jews because the position is bacon chef? What if they're just a desert chef and one desert involves bacon? Further, can their religious prohibition about the inappropriateness of eating bacon mean they shouldn't have to prepare bacon?
Except of course the actual issues revolve around life and death medical issues instead of a Turkey Club that is missing some crispy cooked pig.
It's great how we as a society has evolved to the point where we can just deny eachother medical care to feel morally superior for no reason.
If someone has a religious objection to a part of a job, that's all very good and holy, if and only if they acknowledge that they will need to take a different job. You don't get Amish people applying to be computer programmers and then complaining that their religious objections to technology mean they can't touch computers. You don't get Muslims applying for jobs as pig farmers and then complaining that their beliefs mean they can't touch a pig. They simply avoid those jobs. There is no reason why Christians can't do the same.
Unfortunately HHS is proposing to make all this easier;
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/01/26/2018-01226/protecting-statutory-conscience-rights-in-health-care-delegations-of-authority
By proposing a rule making it easier to abuse "freedom of conscience" provisions for a number of things including vaccination.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Heck, I went to a catholic school where half the teachers were actual Franciscan monks who had actual fucking frocks they wore on Sundays, and the school had a vaccination program going where parents just had to sign a paper that the school gave to the kids and the school would take care of coordinating dates and having doctors come to the school during mandatory class hours to vaccinate everyone.
The idea that christians would be inherently against vaccines on grounds of religion is so damn weird to me.
I wonder if they'll change their tune when their kids die from a preventable disease, or if they'll just chalk it up to Gods will. I've noticed that a lot of people tend to change their minds when they themselves experience misfortune.
That's pretty much the point of religion, and has always been the case. The stuff that God says is more important than what happens to people, because ultimately it's all for the greater good in the end.
In this case it's pretty extreme, as it's a niche group arguing something that doesn't seem to be a part of their religion (or just trying to use religion to fight for some other belief), but fundamentally it's not that different from religion asking you to make sacrifices or have faith that something seemingly bad happening to someone else is part of God's complex and intricate plan.
It's just that the people doing the 'sacrifice' are other people here, which is why this is a stupid angle for the supposedly secular Government to take.
This a fun game!
You don't get people who adhere to strict vows of chastity taking jobs as porn stars, and then complaining that their religious beliefs prevent them from having sex.
You don't get religious pacifists applying to the marine corps, and then complaining that their commanding officers want them to engage in violent acts.
You don't get Atheists joining the Catholic priesthood, and then complaining that their objections to religion mean that they can't deliver sacraments.
What it's really saying is "We don't want to have to obey laws written by filthy fucking degenerate liberals".
This is a line of attack by the Right, through the courts, against progressive wins in the legislature and the courts and that's it. Just like Hobby Lobby. The entire point is to circumvent loses in the culture war by getting conservative justices to say that you can ignore the law if you use religion as an excuse.
Sure, you couldn't stop Obamacare and you couldn't repeal Obamacare, but you can ignore parts of it you hate because the courts say it's ok to do so as long as you say it's about religion.
They are pushing cases that build and reinforce this framework all over the place. They don't give a shit about this specific issue, only the precedent it helps enshrine.
hasn't stopped these jerkoffs yet
Three is, in fact, an hpv test. It is being done reflexively on positive pap tests in Ontario because if there is no high risk hpv present, further testing is not necessary. In addition, parts of eEurope are using it for primary screening in place of pap tests but it is a bit expensive.
This religion thing is a new development. Christians have never been against vaccinations.
Jenny McCarthy got upset her son had autism and blamed it on vaccines and a lot of other parents got pissy about it in some weird version of libertarianism and looked for any way they could to not have to have their kids required to be vaccinated, and lo and behold look religious exemptions let them do that.
So they said "yes my religion doesn't allow me to vaccinate my kids" which has never really ever been a thing. The only ones that might be able to claim that historically before the wacky fucks of the 90s is the JWs and Amish.
Basically fuck that dude that blamed thimerosal for autism and fuck McCarthy and her indigo child nonsense that spawned the modern anti-vaccine movement.