1 in 10 Americans say Covid-19 vaccine conflicts with their religious beliefs
npr.org
npr.org
Besides forcing a civilian to take a drug without due process is blatantly unconstitutional, and the people declaring these mandates know is unconstitutional, yet they do it anyway. Trying to convince the US citizenry to do something using authoritarian methods never works and the powers that be should also know that. It's a completely bungled affair.
You can be pro-vaccination or anti-vaccination just like you can be pro-sterilization or anti-sterilization; making it compulsory is a whole different thing.
then what about the smoking laws?
problem is "you" don't live on an island. Your actions impact others. Am I arguing that vaccine mandates are a good thing, not always. Just the highly binary arguments don't really do justice to the complexity of the issue.
I so tired of divisive slogans and ideas. most issues are complex and require more than a bumper sticker.
And yes I'm on a war against absolutes because only a sith thinks in absolutes.
This is at the state level and each state decides their vaccination requirements. Many states have religious and medical exemptions. You can always move to another state or file for religious exemption or send your kids to private school or even home school if you really don't want to vaccinate them. From what I understand the current vaccine mandate doesn't even allow exemption for people who have already caught covid, have natural immunity, and are at higher risk of negative outcomes due to the vaccine.
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3...
>then what about the smoking laws?
The second hand smoke theory was based on bad science to achieve a political end. It's funny you mention that because this was probably one of the first major catalysts in recent memory that really pushed the distrust of "government science."
https://slate.com/technology/2017/02/secondhand-smoke-isnt-a...
>problem is "you" don't live on an island. Your actions impact others.
Right, but that same thing applies to the citizenry accepting dubious mandates that are unconstitutional. The problem is the government (and media) is using the heavy handed / force approach, which is pretty stupid and obviously counter-effective as evidenced by our current vaccination rate. Federal employees can opt to have weekly tests in lieu of the vaccine though, which is good. Companies haven't been given much guidance though and they collectively bear a larger burden because of numbers and liability.
There are other issues like the government absolved all liability from the vaccine manufacturers as well, which isn't great optics, yet they didn't absolve the companies that are now tasked to force employees to take the vaccine from the same liability. Let's say I'm an employer and I force my employees to get the vaccine. One employee requires hospitalization due to the vaccine. I am now liable for his medical bills. It's completely ham fisted.
This is a pretty interesting, well thought out point of view of employer mandates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apF6bft5kFA
>Am I arguing that vaccine mandates are a good thing, not always. Just the highly binary arguments don't really do justice to the complexity of the issue.
>And yes I'm on a war against absolutes because only a sith thinks in absolutes.
You mean the entire discussion from this point has been "vaccines are good, you are a detriment to society if you don't accept this absolute?" Ya I agree with that. At one point the government and media used to respect the citizenry's ability to reason; now not so much.
or arguing the religious exemption when you have all the other vaccines.
Arguing "bad science" at least your being genuine in your arguments. Whether they stand up in court is another matter. not for me to decide.
I would also say if your using a religious argument disingenuously you might want to consider your own soul before you do it. Again that's between you and God not my fight.
you want to argue more transparency for the CDC and FDA, absolutely agree. You want to argue for easier options for real medical exemptions, I agree. Exemptions if your antibody titers are as high the vaccinated, why not.
Humans are selfish hypocrites. Maybe your family members don't have any inconsistency because they're drawing a line in the sand at "heartbeat" or whatever, or maybe they're just hypocrites like everyone else.
But it's important to recognize we are all hypocrites, and that someone doing one thing while saying another doesn't actually reveal some hidden dishonesty or deception. John Kerry really can care about climate change while having a massive carbon footprint and your family really can care about saving babies while doing IVF. The human mind will rationalize all sorts of exceptions and justifications for even the most strongly held beliefs.
Consider that one cannot smoke in some public spaces without consequence. For many going unvaccinated to school or the office is in a similar category.
Scientific consensus says the vaccine saves lives, and religion says I must not kill people. This seems compatible to me. Who cares what “the government” says?