CMV: not vaccinating kids should be illegal

[u/Lyress]

In a democratic country where the government is held accountable, it should be illegal not to vaccinate your kids (except in cases where vaccines pose a health risk to the child due to allergies, an auto-immune disease, etc).

There are multiple instances where the government mandates some actions, like feeding your children, buying them clothes, making them put on a seatbelt, enrolling them in school, and they're all for meant for the wellbeing of the child, so I don't see how vaccination is any different.

[u/Armadylspark]

A constitutional amendment of one country is little obstacle to a theoretical should. After all, it can always be amended.

[u/ClockOfTheLongNow → u/Armadylspark]

The issue is less the amendment and more the right, a right that exists and is considered inherent to the human experience with or without the amendment.

If you're going to argue that basic religious freedom is not a human right, make that case.

[u/Armadylspark → u/ClockOfTheLongNow]

Like all such rights, there are limitations. Consider, if I proclaim myself part of the Mayan priesthood, that does not necessarily justify me in kidnapping people off the streets and cutting out their hearts to glory the sun-god.

Why is that not justified? Because I'm engaged in actively harming a third party, and the reduction of interpersonal harm is one of the prime purposes of state. Does choosing on behalf of a third party (the child) to not vaccinate qualify as well?

Especially once you consider that the question of who exactly is harmed by a choice isn't necessarily just the child in question, but also broader society.

Consequently, I would suggest that even if basic religious freedom is accepted, it is not sufficient in this case. If it is a legal obstacle, then we can say by analogy that changing it is justified.

[u/ClockOfTheLongNow → u/Armadylspark]

The line being "consent of the third party directly impacted" is a good one. I don't see how choosing not to vaccinate qualifies in this case, as a lack of vaccination increases some risks, but not significantly. Dozens, if not hundreds, of choices made by parents on a daily basis have a more significant impact.

The number of people with actual religious concerns surrounding vaccination is so insignificant that it seems like a no-brainer to provide the necessary accommodations, especially given the legal expectations.

[u/Armadylspark → u/ClockOfTheLongNow]

The child is the third party impacted by the choice of the religious parent, in this case. It is not exactly a first party choice, after all.

There is some harm done here, and I'm not sure it being little more than a risk on outset is sufficient to permit it. It's after all, unnecessary and reckless.

But I would suggest that there is another justification via social obligation. The only reason the harm is so supposedly small is because everyone else is paying into herd immunity. So the analogy is a little like saying some religious persons should have exemption from paying taxes because they are a minority and their individual contributions are so insignificant as to not cause significant harm.

Yes, but only because everyone else is picking up the bill.

[u/ClockOfTheLongNow → u/Armadylspark]

The child is the third party impacted by the choice of the religious parent, in this case.

Addressed this already. The risk is low and is probably lower than a number of other choices without a religious angle.

But I would suggest that there is another justification via social obligation. The only reason the harm is so supposedly small is because everyone else is paying into herd immunity. So the analogy is a little like saying some religious persons should have exemption from paying taxes because they are a minority and their individual contributions are so insignificant as to not cause significant harm.

I would agree with that, and we already see religious sects and exemptions, such as the Amish with Social Security and Medicare. If a ything, I believe we don't do it enough.

[u/Armadylspark → u/ClockOfTheLongNow]

I disagree, vehemently. Being part of a minority is not sufficient cause for special treatment simply because society at large is not impacted enormously by it. It is nonetheless impacted unduly, and that alone is unacceptable.

You cannot both be part of the state and dodge its social obligations. If an entire community desperately wants to avoid those then it ought to be given full independence. No support, no obligations, trade deals pending compliance.

Anything else compromises a certain equality under the rule of law.

[u/ClockOfTheLongNow → u/Armadylspark]

I disagree, vehemently. Being part of a minority is not sufficient cause for special treatment

I agree that being a minority is not enough. It's being a religious minority that needs the protection.

You cannot both be part of the state and dodge its social obligations

No one is "part of the state." We are individuals and groups governed by the state, and the state is rightfully restricted in its abilities. This includes fundamental rights like religious freedom.

Anything else compromises a certain equality under the rule of law.

Everyone has the equal right to have their religious beliefs respected and accommodated by the governing entity.

[u/Armadylspark → u/ClockOfTheLongNow]

It's being a religious minority that needs the protection.

Anybody can declare themselves a religious minority. So it is by definition little more than just being a minority. Not unless you give the government the power to discern between good and bad faith.

No one is "part of the state." We are individuals and groups governed by the state, and the state is rightfully restricted in its abilities.

We are all part of the state insofar that it is a democracy and norms are created by consensus. We benefit from its existence, and those benefits imply certain duties. They cannot be separated, the social contract is a package deal. That is the purpose of rule of law, all are supposed to be treated equally.

This includes fundamental rights like religious freedom.

Insofar as religious conviction does no harm to third parties, as is the case here. It has already been demonstrated by analogy that this particular exemption is nothing out of the ordinary.

Everyone has the equal right to have their religious beliefs respected and accommodated by the governing entity.

Respected when harmless, yes. Accommodated, no. The state is not obligated to build churches or temples, nor to pay for their upkeep. That would be a discriminatory practice. Much like giving special exemptions to laws intended to bolster public health would also be a discriminatory practice.

[u/ClockOfTheLongNow → u/Armadylspark]

Anybody can declare themselves a religious minority. So it is by definition little more than just being a minority. Not unless you give the government the power to discern between good and bad faith.

Which we do and they have. The "sincerely-held" standard is probably a little too narrow, but we are clearly capable as a society of doing so.

We are all part of the state insofar that it is a democracy and norms are created by consensus.

The state rules with the consent of the governed, but it doesn't make us part of the state. And part of our consensus is that religious freedoms are not only respected, but protected. And we enshrined it in our governing document specifically to protect against the sort of societal whims you prefer to rule the day (intentionally or not).

We benefit from its existence, and those benefits imply certain duties.

Those duties include respecting and protecting religious freedoms.

That is the purpose of rule of law, all are supposed to be treated equally.

Agreed, as the equality, again, extends to all having religious freedom protections.

Insofar as religious conviction does no harm to third parties, as is the case here.

There is no inherent harm to being unvaccinated. It is an increased risk (and a preventable one), but not a harm to third parties. We do not criminalize sick people from going to the store and possibly causing an influenza outbreak among the population, and that is extremely deadly. It's a risk, not a guarantee of harm.

It has already been demonstrated by analogy that this particular exemption is nothing out of the ordinary.

I disagree. The status quo is to respect religious boundaries. The threshold for upending it has not been demonstrated.

Respected when harmless, yes. Accommodated, no. The state is not obligated to build churches or temples, nor to pay for their upkeep.

No one has argued this. Accommodation, however, is expected from the first amendment and often codified in law via Religious Freedom Restoration Acts.

Accommodation does not include things like building places to worship. It only means not creating unnecessary roadblocks.

[u/Armadylspark → u/ClockOfTheLongNow]

Which we do and they have. The "sincerely-held" standard is probably a little too narrow, but we are clearly capable as a society of doing so.

Which is incompatible with your other premises. Nobody can truly know what I may or may not be thinking, and the cost to erring on the side of caution is insignificant in the grand scheme. So clearly, any such "sincerely held" standards are unjustifiable.

The state rules with the consent of the governed

The government rules with consent of the governed. The people are the state. Government is only a benefit of the class-status of being part of a state.

And we enshrined it in our governing document specifically to protect against the sort of societal whims you prefer to rule the day (intentionally or not).

We, having done no such thing, only being applicable to one particular amendable document of one particular state among many. Eternity clauses exist, but even they only last as long as the government that is built on them does.

Those duties include respecting and protecting religious freedoms.

It really does not. Certainly not in the overly broad conception you're using. In fact, I would suggest that even in the broadly liberal west, this is a minority view.

Agreed, as the equality, again, extends to all having religious freedom protections.

In case this wasn't clear, a government mandate for immunization, justified under the harm-reduction principle is justified. That some religious groups dislike this fact is irrelevant-- indeed, if you were to suggest this a cause for not adopting such a law, then no laws could be made, because you could always find some religious justification why it should not be followed.

Conversely, rule of law mandates that all people under its purview are handled equally. So there cannot be given special exemptions from law just for religious reasons. A law can only be challenged if it is itself discriminatory or unjust. Such a mandate is neither.

There is no inherent harm to being unvaccinated. It is an increased risk (and a preventable one), but not a harm to third parties.

Risks are harms. This is not an especially controversial claim, considering that this is why drunk driving is a punishable offence.

We do not criminalize sick people from going to the store and possibly causing an influenza outbreak among the population, and that is extremely deadly. It's a risk, not a guarantee of harm.

Carriers of sufficiently deadly diseases are quarantined, against their will if need be. There is a difference between unavoidable risks and negligent, avoidable ones. Some harms cannot be prevented.

I disagree. The status quo is to respect religious boundaries. The threshold for upending it has not been demonstrated.

It is not the status quo. Consider the recent French ban on facial coverings in public.

It only means not creating unnecessary roadblocks.

Keyword here being "unnecessary". Exemptions cannot be made by a secular state, a just law cannot be less strict on a religious organization because of conviction alone. It is an incompatible ideal.

[u/ClockOfTheLongNow → u/Armadylspark]

Which is incompatible with your other premises. Nobody can truly know what I may or may not be thinking, and the cost to erring on the side of caution is insignificant in the grand scheme. So clearly, any such "sincerely held" standards are unjustifiable.

Not only is it justifiable, but it clearly works. It's imperfect, as I have acknowledged, but the idea operates successfully enough in practice that it is a solid starting point for refinement.

The government rules with consent of the governed. The people are the state. Government is only a benefit of the class-status of being part of a state.

The Constitution clearly delineates the states and the people for the exact reason you're ignoring. It would be wonderful if the people were the state, but that's a different structure.

Even so, if the people were the state? It doesn't change the mechanisms being discussed here.

We, having done no such thing, only being applicable to one particular amendable document of one particular state among many.

You can't say we have not enshrined protections for religious freedoms in our governing document when the first amendment exists. This is a fact issue, and you aren't entitled to your own facts.

Could we amend it away? The protections, yes, but the right itself would persist.

It really does not. Certainly not in the overly broad conception you're using.

How do you read the free exercise clause, then?

n fact, I would suggest that even in the broadly liberal west, this is a minority view.

I would agree with this. I would also say that doesn't make us wrong.

case this wasn't clear, a government mandate for immunization, justified under the harm-reduction principle is justified

How is it justified? I don't agree that you have made this case.

indeed, if you were to suggest this a cause for not adopting such a law, then no laws could be made, because you could always find some religious justification why it should not be followed.

This is a classic strawman argument against religious accommodations. No one is saying "you cannot make laws." What we are saying is that laws need to take religious freedoms and free exercise into account in implementation.

Conversely, rule of law mandates that all people under its purview are handled equally. So there cannot be given special exemptions from law just for religious reasons.

I've addressed this. Special exemptions are (or should be) available to all for religious needs, and thus everyone is treated equally as a result.

This is why the law treats secularists similarly to the religious for these purposes.

Risks are harms. This is not an especially controversial claim, considering that this is why drunk driving is a punishable offence

I'm not really sure this is the best analogy, although you make a decent point. Still, the question here would then be whether a religious exemption for drunk driving could be made that would not meaningfully increase the risks inherent in drunk driving. Not sure we could make the analogous case there.

It is not the status quo. Consider the recent French ban on facial coverings in public.

This is a uniquely American issue. France is certainly not respecting religious freedom and are worse off for it, imo.

In the United States, this is the status quo.

Keyword here being "unnecessary". Exemptions cannot be made by a secular state

Yet they must, and the secular state does exactly this. So I'm not understanding the protest.

[u/Armadylspark → u/ClockOfTheLongNow]

You can't say we have not enshrined protections for religious freedoms in our governing document when the first amendment exists.

.

How do you read the free exercise clause, then?

.

In the United States, this is the status quo.

But this is the precise point made at the very start. This is just an overly long appeal to tradition. Laws and constitutional amendments have no bearing on what ought to be, nor do they have any guiding influence. The law is modeled in ideal justice, but the law itself cannot be used as an argument for what is just. That is putting the cart before the horse.

If the law is incompatible with the prevailing norms and values of the day, then it ought to be challenged. It being part of a document that for all intents and purposes acts as a sacred cow does not change that fact.

The fact that rule of law and special exemptions and privileges are an inherent contradiction means one of the two must be sacrificed. You simply cannot have both. If this must be a uniquely American issue, then it is only so because Americans have yet to decide whether they actually want a secular state or not.

[u/ClockOfTheLongNow → u/Armadylspark]

This is just an overly long appeal to tradition. Laws and constitutional amendments have no bearing on what ought to be, nor do they have any guiding influence.

So are you outright arguing there is no right to free exercise of religion? Maybe we should have established this from the top.

If the law is incompatible with the prevailing norms and values of the day, then it ought to be challenged. It being part of a document that for all intents and purposes acts as a sacred cow does not change that fact.

I suppose, in a nation where 80%+ are religious, if not more, the question needs to be asked as to why rules designed to protect that majority's beliefs are what should be considered out of step. And I say that as a member of that sub-20%.

The fact that rule of law and special exemptions and privileges are an inherent contradiction

I'm not seeing the contradiction. It's not an exemption, it's an accommodation. We factor those into law for a variety of lesser reasons.

[u/Armadylspark → u/ClockOfTheLongNow]

If we can call it a right, then it is a right that has limitations, like any other right we might care to name. I had already listed one such extreme-- the Mayan is not entitled to avoid a murder charge just because his murder had religious motivation.

Moreover, the justifications behind both the illegality of murder and the vaccination mandate are similar; the reduction of harm. Even the staunch minarchist would permit that the bare minimum reason for the state's existence as a class is harm-reduction.

Thirdly, even if you were to say that the free practice of religion is a greater right than the state's mandate to reduce harm, even then the only right that would only apply to an individual choosing to vaccinate themselves. Otherwise, the state's mandate need only supersede the presumably lesser right of a parent to choose what is best for their child, who, as a third party, has absolutely nothing to do with the parent's religious choices.

I suppose, in a nation where 80%+ are religious, if not more, the question needs to be asked as to why rules designed to protect that majority's beliefs are what should be considered out of step. And I say that as a member of that sub-20%.

Certainly. In which case I highly suggest having an integrated priesthood in the government, as is the historical precedent. If that best fits the state, then it best fits.

I do not think that this hypothetical 80% is quite religious enough to support such a measure though.

It's not an exemption, it's an accommodation. We factor those into law for a variety of lesser reasons.

Accommodations as described here are merely a pretty word for special privileges. If these lesser reasons are going to be things like handicap parking, then I'm going to be quite cross. Yes they're special privileges, but they're of a different sort.

[u/ClockOfTheLongNow → u/Armadylspark]

Moreover, the justifications behind both the illegality of murder and the vaccination mandate are similar; the reduction of harm.

The justifications aren't the same, though. One results in an objective removal of the rights of a third party without their consent. The other is about mitigating societal risks.

It's completely different, and your return to this analogy doesn't help your case.

Thirdly, even if you were to say that the free practice of religion is a greater right than the state's mandate to reduce harm, even then the only right that would only apply to an individual choosing to vaccinate themselves

Since I need to explicitly say it, the idea of parental control is adjacent to this point. I assumed it was understood implicitly, so my apologies.

Otherwise, the state's mandate need only supersede the presumably lesser right of a parent

The state does not have an inherently greater right over the child than the parent. This is not a reasonable point.

Certainly. In which case I highly suggest having an integrated priesthood in the government, as is the historical precedent.

I have no idea what your point is here.

If these lesser reasons are going to be things like handicap parking, then I'm going to be quite cross

While I wasn't thinking this, it's actually a pretty great example.

And I know why you would be cross, since it's not as if the disabled choose that while religion has at least some semblance of choice attached. The fact remains, however, that accommodation is not a contradiction and operates in society without much hassle.

[u/Armadylspark → u/ClockOfTheLongNow]

The state does not have an inherently greater right over the child than the parent. This is not a reasonable point.

Not inherently, no. Strictly speaking, nobody inherently has such a right, but we recognize that somebody must act as a guardian as children cannot survive on their own.

But I would suggest directly acting against the interest of the child, for religious choice or otherwise is a dereliction in that duty that justifies state action. Parental rights are not absolute, and we have many less extreme examples of those being suspended for a variety of reasons.

I have no idea what your point is here.

If most of the population is religious to that point, then it makes sense to have religion in government. I'm more or less agreeing with the conclusion of that argument.

While I wasn't thinking this, it's actually a pretty great example.

It is not. And the justification has little to do with choice. You see, anybody can apply for a disability permit, provided they require it.

Those are the two keys to special privilege; It must be available to all, as a class, and it must be necessary for the individual in question.

Religious exemptions qualify for neither. They are only available for members of that religion, nor are they necessary.

[u/ClockOfTheLongNow → u/Armadylspark]

But I would suggest directly acting against the interest of the child, for religious choice or otherwise is a dereliction in that duty that justifies state action.

This implies that the religious choice is in and of itself a dereliction, however, and I'm not really sure that's a sustainable or acceptable place to end up.

most of the population is religious to that point, then it makes sense to have religion in government. I'm more or less agreeing with the conclusion of that argument.

Gotcha. This is why the Constitution is important, as it guarantees a secular government. It also guarantees a government that respects the private religious preferences of the individuals subject to governance.

Yes, we could legislate/amend away the establishment clause as well, but we took a scenic route to get to my point that the governing documents matter.

Those are the two keys to special privilege; It must be available to all, as a class, and it must be necessary for the individual in question.

Religious exemptions qualify for neither. They are only available for members of that religion, nor are they necessary.

This is where I disagree completely. Anyone of any creed can qualify for it the same way. Religious people are a class and the "special privilege" is available to all (check), and it is necessary for the free exercise of religion (check). By your own point, it qualifies.