40 replies to this topic

[Magicjax]

When ever I read those words (religious exemption) a red light tends to go off in my mind.

While many religious exemptions are harmless.  Some, well many actually, can be down right dangerous.

Some examples I know of are things like religious exemption for vaccines. If a vaccine is important enough that kids must have it to be admitted into a school. Someone's religion won't effect the dangers either way. If the virus will effect people of one religion it'll effect people of any religion. So their religious beliefs have no effect on the vaccine and no religious vaccine exemption should ever happen. Here's an example:
http://www.msnbc.msn...-vaccines-kids/

There are many examples of religious exemptions that I think can be dangerous and I don't think a single one of them is appropriate to be honest.

Religious Exemptions give some people the legal right to do what they please in some cases. For instance the anti-bullying law here in Michigan says that “bullying kids is okay if a student, parent, teacher or school employee can come up with a moral or religious reason for doing it.”
http://swampland.tim...ous-tormenters/

Why should churches be exempted from paying taxes?

Check out How it effects education (higher education) in different states. At first it doesn't seem bad. But I think about all the kids who's education is either altered or limited by their parents views here. Some that might be forced to go to this school or that school based on their parents preferences. That's fine to some degree. But if the decision is made on religious belief before the child is older and makes up their own minds in religion. I don't think it's right to be forced in a direction on that matter. But that's another discussion.

I don't always see this as a theist/atheist debate. It seems many in both sides disagree with many religious exemptions. What's your thoughts?

[Seeker79]

Magicjax, on 03 July 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

When ever I read those words (religious exemption) a red light tends to go off in my mind.

While many religious exemptions are harmless.  Some, well many actually, can be down right dangerous.

Some examples I know of are things like religious exemption for vaccines. If a vaccine is important enough that kids must have it to be admitted into a school. Someone's religion won't effect the dangers either way. If the virus will effect people of one religion it'll effect people of any religion. So their religious beliefs have no effect on the vaccine and no religious vaccine exemption should ever happen. Here's an example:
http://www.msnbc.msn...-vaccines-kids/

There are many examples of religious exemptions that I think can be dangerous and I don't think a single one of them is appropriate to be honest.

Religious Exemptions give some people the legal right to do what they please in some cases. For instance the anti-bullying law here in Michigan says that “bullying kids is okay if a student, parent, teacher or school employee can come up with a moral or religious reason for doing it.”
http://swampland.tim...ous-tormenters/

Why should churches be exempted from paying taxes?

Check out How it effects education (higher education) in different states. At first it doesn't seem bad. But I think about all the kids who's education is either altered or limited by their parents views here. Some that might be forced to go to this school or that school based on their parents preferences. That's fine to some degree. But if the decision is made on religious belief before the child is older and makes up their own minds in religion. I don't think it's right to be forced in a direction on that matter. But that's another discussion.

I don't always see this as a theist/atheist debate. It seems many in both sides disagree with many religious exemptions. What's your thoughts?

The problem is that we are supposed to be free. We should have the right to deni any conclusions reguardless of how right the concluder is. This is a protection. We voted as a society that every child will receive an education, we also voted the we have religouse freedom. So a child should be able to go to school and not be forced to do something that violates their beliefs. Yes they are their parents beliefs, but you cannot take the right of parents away to raise their children the way they see fit just because you think you are right....even if you are. This is dangerouse and can lead to very dangerouse things.

As to taxes.... If churches are set up as non profits then and are following the rules, then there is no problem.

The issue is not one of religion vs secular, it is oneoif more freedoms or less freedoms. I'll vote more freedom everytime.

[Michelle]

I didn't realize going natural was now considered a religion. That is actually the largest percentage of people that are against vaccines for children...the people that are pro green, organic foods, natural cleansers, environmentalists and are into alternative medicine.

http://www.naturalne...s_vaccines.html

Edited by Michelle, 03 July 2012 - 06:16 PM.

[Magicjax]

Good points Seeker79

I just see how at times it can be dangerous though. For example image some plague and there's a vaccine for it. I agree that it's their right to decide what to or not to put in their bodies. But if their religious belief stops them from the vaccine. Something will have to be done to prevent them from possibly spreading the plague regardless of their religious belief. In this case they'd literally be a threat to others. Religion should have to effect in this kind of extreme situation in my opinion.

The one about religion being an "excuse" to bully is one that I can't disagree with more. What idiot added this clause?

Edited by Magicjax, 03 July 2012 - 06:17 PM.

[Michelle]

Here is another good article...

http://www.vaccineri...ly-To-Vaccinate

[Seeker79]

Magicjax, on 03 July 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Good points Seeker79

I just see how at times it can be dangerous though. For example image some plague and there's a vaccine for it. I agree that it's their right to decide what to or not to put in their bodies. But if their religious belief stops them from the vaccine. Something will have to be done to prevent them from possibly spreading the plague regardless of their religious belief. In this case they'd literally be a threat to others. Religion should have to effect in this kind of extreme situation in my opinion.

The one about religion being an "excuse" to bully is one that I can't disagree with more. What idiot added this clause?

Sure extremes will always have their dilemmas. The other extreme is that forceing kids to have vaccines could lead to a corrupt government or health department experimenting on children, or engaging in bad science..... Hmmmm. DDT comes to mind.

[Mr Right Wing]

Magicjax, on 03 July 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

1. If a vaccine is important enough that kids must have it to be admitted into a school.
2. For instance the anti-bullying law here in Michigan says that "bullying kids is okay if a student, parent, teacher or school employee can come up with a moral or religious reason for doing it."
3. Why should churches be exempted from paying taxes?
4. But I think about all the kids who's education is either altered or limited by their parents views here.

1. What vaccine is so important that a child must have it before going to school?

When they make a vaccine they infect a monkey with the disease they want to give humans immunity too. If the monkey fights it off they take its guts out and liquidise them in a food blender. They then dilute the monkey gut pulp down to make 1000s of doses. The problem is it allows cross species infection (probably where AIDS came from), it activates an immune system response as monkey dna is not your own and to top it off they put mercury into the vaccines. The immune response against monkey dna is dangerous as it can cause your immune system to attack parts of you giving you brain damage, autism and an increased risk of cancer.

To top it off you are violating religion by putting animal parts into your body.

2. Didnt know that but that would be fun.
3. Its the only way they can balance their books.
4. People have a right to bring their children up as they see fit. Who says your way is the right way?

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 03 July 2012 - 09:43 PM.

[Darkwind]

The other part of the op was about a Michigan law.  It is ok to bully someone if your religion says what they are doing in their life is wrong.

Quote

But the Michigan legislature is doing its best to make me hang my head in shame. On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled state senate passed an anti-bullying bill that manages to protect school bullies instead of those they victimize. It accomplishes this impressive feat by allowing students, teachers, and other school employees to claim that “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction” justifies their harassment

Read more: http://swampland.tim.../#ixzz1zbJak2yP

This is what we are teaching our children. It is ok to demean someone because they are different.  What kind of nut cases came up with a law like that.  We are teaching children, the people who are different are less than human.  This makes me think of the times in history when this has come up before. The inquistion and Hitler come to mind.  Makes me sick.

[and then]

Magicjax, on 03 July 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

When ever I read those words (religious exemption) a red light tends to go off in my mind.

While many religious exemptions are harmless.  Some, well many actually, can be down right dangerous.

Some examples I know of are things like religious exemption for vaccines. If a vaccine is important enough that kids must have it to be admitted into a school. Someone's religion won't effect the dangers either way. If the virus will effect people of one religion it'll effect people of any religion. So their religious beliefs have no effect on the vaccine and no religious vaccine exemption should ever happen. Here's an example:
http://www.msnbc.msn...-vaccines-kids/

There are many examples of religious exemptions that I think can be dangerous and I don't think a single one of them is appropriate to be honest.

Religious Exemptions give some people the legal right to do what they please in some cases. For instance the anti-bullying law here in Michigan says that "bullying kids is okay if a student, parent, teacher or school employee can come up with a moral or religious reason for doing it."
http://swampland.tim...ous-tormenters/

Why should churches be exempted from paying taxes?

Check out How it effects education (higher education) in different states. At first it doesn't seem bad. But I think about all the kids who's education is either altered or limited by their parents views here. Some that might be forced to go to this school or that school based on their parents preferences. That's fine to some degree. But if the decision is made on religious belief before the child is older and makes up their own minds in religion. I don't think it's right to be forced in a direction on that matter. But that's another discussion.

I don't always see this as a theist/atheist debate. It seems many in both sides disagree with many religious exemptions. What's your thoughts?

To me this is justifiable as a part of the "separation of church and State"  If the gubmint can tax a church it has a certain control over it and possibly even it's message from the pulpit.  If religion isn't allowed anywhere but inside the church then that entity should be sacrosanct.

Edited by and then, 03 July 2012 - 11:29 PM.

[Mr Walker]

The issue of vaccination is complex and vexatious. The bottom line is tha,t while parents have a genuine right to decide what is in the best interests of their child based on informed opinion, they have no right to endanger other children.

Among very young children no vaccination is possible. These children remain vulnerable to infection. The larger the critical mass of unvaccinated people in a society, the greater the vectors for infection. And so, many young children die whose parents would vaccinate them, because other parents wont vaccinate their own. In issues of public health and safety, governments do have powers and right s.

I believe no chld should be allowed to attend school unless fully vaccinated because it puts the  lives and health of others at risk.  As education is compulsory, all children would then either need to be vaccinated or, effectively and legally, home schooled. In australia parents get a lot of money and benefits form the govt  including  money rebates on costs, free education and health care.Those could be cut off for parents who refused to comply, or the govt could give incentives to families .

I can understand a parent who fears the effects of vaccination but life is about making sensible judgements. The dangers of not vaccinating are far greater than vaccinating. In a way, people who do not vaccinate rely on others to protect their children by creating a high vacination rate which slows or prevents the transmision of disease. I am od enouht to know people cripled by polio and to have seen childen die of basci preventable diseases. I dont want us to return to those days and if this means restricting some parental rights, so be it. Soon we will be able to use genetic manipulation to safeguard kids. I wonder how parents will feel about that.

[Arbenol68]

Mr Walker, on 04 July 2012 - 01:18 AM, said:

The issue of vaccination is complex and vexatious. The bottom line is tha,t while parents have a genuine right to decide what is in the best interests of their child based on informed opinion, they have no right to endanger other children.

Among very young children no vaccination is possible. These children remain vulnerable to infection. The larger the critical mass of unvaccinated people in a society, the greater the vectors for infection. And so, many young children die whose parents would vaccinate them, because other parents wont vaccinate their own. In issues of public health and safety, governments do have powers and right s.

I believe no chld should be allowed to attend school unless fully vaccinated because it puts the  lives and health of others at risk.  As education is compulsory, all children would then either need to be vaccinated or, effectively and legally, home schooled. In australia parents get a lot of money and benefits form the govt  including  money rebates on costs, free education and health care.Those could be cut off for parents who refused to comply, or the govt could give incentives to families .

I can understand a parent who fears the effects of vaccination but life is about making sensible judgements. The dangers of not vaccinating are far greater than vaccinating. In a way, people who do not vaccinate rely on others to protect their children by creating a high vacination rate which slows or prevents the transmision of disease. I am od enouht to know people cripled by polio and to have seen childen die of basci preventable diseases. I dont want us to return to those days and if this means restricting some parental rights, so be it. Soon we will be able to use genetic manipulation to safeguard kids. I wonder how parents will feel about that.

Nicely put.

This may be a case where the rights of the many trump individual rights of parents to decide. I'm certainly not entirely comfortable with governments dictating in this way, but it seems to be much lesser of two evils.

As for people going 'natural' (as one poster mentioned earlier). All very well, but when it comes to childhood diseases they're a menace. I know parents that actually hold measles parties. If one child gets it, they have all their mates round so they can all catch it and get it out of the way. The mind boggles.

Going natural? Smallpox, anyone?

[Seeker79]

Arbenol68, on 04 July 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

Nicely put.

This may be a case where the rights of the many trump individual rights of parents to decide. I'm certainly not entirely comfortable with governments dictating in this way, but it seems to be much lesser of two evils.

As for people going 'natural' (as one poster mentioned earlier). All very well, but when it comes to childhood diseases they're a menace. I know parents that actually hold measles parties. If one child gets it, they have all their mates round so they can all catch it and get it out of the way. The mind boggles.

Going natural? Smallpox, anyone?

Well I read both your posts, and I'll have to say I agree..but.

When I was A kid my mother was against any kind of vaccinations.  I went through school... At the time there was a waiver. And it could be signed and somehow Id be in school.

Of course I was educating myself, and at 18 at the university, ( that I put myself through with some aid  of government grants...about half)  I told the nurse I needed everything .( that was a rough weekend)

The point is that there was no calculable threat. If there was some  pandemic or something sure. But there wasn't.  Sure I could have had tb or something. But why not accommodate freedom In times of normal bell curve activity. I know we are trying to mitigate the risks of living but where is the line. My disposition is to take the risks in the name of free choice.... But of course that has a line and a limit.

[Mr Walker]

Seeker79, on 04 July 2012 - 04:10 AM, said:

Well I read both your posts, and I'll have to say I agree..but.

When I was A kid my mother was against any kind of vaccinations.  I went through school... At the time there was a waiver. And it could be signed and somehow Id be in school.

Of course I was educating myself, and at 18 at the university, ( that I put myself through with some aid  of government grants...about half)  I told the nurse I needed everything .( that was a rough weekend)

The point is that there was no calculable threat. If there was some  pandemic or something sure. But there wasn't.  Sure I could have had tb or something. But why not accommodate freedom In times of normal bell curve activity. I know we are trying to mitigate the risks of living but where is the line. My disposition is to take the risks in the name of free choice.... But of course that has a line and a limit.

Its very rare that i disagree with you seeker,but how would you feel if you had a young child whom you intended to vaccinate but it was too young to do so; and it caught a disease from an older child whose parents had refused to vaccinate it, and then died .

I suppose I iam more aware of this and tend to see it from a public health perspective because I teach kids. Last week i had to relief teach some "little ones" in their second year of school. It reminded me again how precious our children are. I can certainly understandd some parents being worried by the very real but infinitesimable risks of vacination but i often wonder if they understand how this puts other children at risk, or if they really care  about anyone else as much as their own child. IMO they have no right at all to put other children at risk, however they feel about their own children. And a failutre by a small percentage offparents to vaccinate can significantly increase the public health risks for all.
Ps because of the variability of effectiveness of all vaccines, some children who are vaccinated are still at risk of a disease. These children are put at greater risk when  an outbreak occurs. This is known as a breakdown in herd immunity. If most of the herd is immunised, diseases overall are restricted and their spread limited

. In some jurisdictions the parents of these children would have legal recourse to sue parents of unvaccinated children for any effects on their child, but in my mind the knowedge that you were responsible for the death of a child would be the worst punishment possible for a person.

There are lot of articles on this but the one here explains it fairly simply and clearly for anyone who is interested.
http://www.michiganl...ons-of-tort-law

Edited by Mr Walker, 04 July 2012 - 10:55 AM.

[Darkwind]

People have short memories and too lazy to look at the real history. Kids died in droves from the diseases we now vaccinate for.  It used to common to see people disfigured by polio.  All that went away with vaccinations. If I don't vaccinate my dog and cat for rabies and they bite someone I am libel if they are found to have rabies.  Maybe that is the way to wake people up to their responsibility to society as a whole.

I think drug companies put a lot of stuff in vaccinations that doesn't need to be there. They need to take a look at that, but  they can be real ******** when it comes to change.

[Mr Right Wing]

Mr Walker, on 04 July 2012 - 01:18 AM, said:

The issue of vaccination is complex and vexatious. The bottom line is that, while parents have a genuine right to decide what is in the best interests of their child based on informed opinion, they have no right to endanger other children.

Among very young children no vaccination is possible. These children remain vulnerable to infection. The larger the critical mass of unvaccinated people in a society, the greater the vectors for infection. And so, many young children die whose parents would vaccinate them, because other parents wont vaccinate their own. In issues of public health and safety, governments do have powers and right s.

I believe no chld should be allowed to attend school unless fully vaccinated because it puts the  lives and health of others at risk.  As education is compulsory, all children would then either need to be vaccinated or, effectively and legally, home schooled. In australia parents get a lot of money and benefits form the govt  including  money rebates on costs, free education and health care.Those could be cut off for parents who refused to comply, or the govt could give incentives to families .

I can understand a parent who fears the effects of vaccination but life is about making sensible judgements. The dangers of not vaccinating are far greater than vaccinating. In a way, people who do not vaccinate rely on others to protect their children by creating a high vacination rate which slows or prevents the transmision of disease. I am od enouht to know people cripled by polio and to have seen childen die of basci preventable diseases. I dont want us to return to those days and if this means restricting some parental rights, so be it. Soon we will be able to use genetic manipulation to safeguard kids. I wonder how parents will feel about that.

This is complete nonsense.

Theres an emotional response driving vaccination programs in this country not a logical one. Scientists know that for well nourished children their dna means 95% are capable of fighting off all tradional diseases. 95% of people require no vaccination yet to inject them with the monkey junk means many will be given brain damage, an increased risk of cancer and autism.

Vaccination does far more damage than good and is also a ticking time-bomb. To save those with weak immune systems means when they have children they pass their weak immune systems on. The result will be a population totally dependant on vaccinations for their survival because natural selection was prevented from removing the weak from the gene pool.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 04 July 2012 - 02:27 PM.