[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.9969

File: 1635804542060.jpeg (112.28 KB, 848x565, 848:565, Faith-And-Viruses.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Should religiously devout Christians who for faith-based reasons oppose vaccines as well as wearing masks and social distancing be able to defy laws against their behavior?

The Supreme Court recently decided against a group of legal challengers in Maine's health care system ( https://www.vox.com/2021/10/29/22753429/supreme-court-vaccine-mandate-maine-does-mills-religious-right-exemption-liberty-constitution ) when it came to a vaccine mandate, but was that right?

 No.9970

>>9969
>The Supreme Court recently decided against a group of legal challengers in Maine's health care system
To be clear, the Court did not make a final decision on the merits.  The Court merely denied the petition for "extraordinary relief" sought by the petitioners.  The denial in this case is not binding precedent for lower courts in other cases.

>>9969
>Should religiously devout Christians who for faith-based reasons oppose vaccines as well as wearing masks and social distancing be able to defy laws against their behavior?
The precedent in *Employment Division v. Smith* (1990) held that a neutral, generally applicable law maybe enforced against people even when it conflicts with their religion.  A question in this Maine case is whether the vaccine mandate is generally applicable, since it allows medical exceptions.  

 No.9971

>>9970
But with the notion of cramming right-wing ideology down the country's throat no matter how unpopular it is among the populace becoming more and more widespread among the judiciary, doesn't precedent mean less and less? And aren't right-wing hardline Christians more and more able to do whatever they want as they see fit in order to cause whatever harm they like to whatever victims they like, secular law be damned?

 No.9973

>>9971
>But with the notion of cramming right-wing ideology down the country's throat no matter how unpopular it is among the populace becoming more and more widespread among the judiciary
Huh?  The judicary isn't "cramming right-wing ideology down the country's throat".  And judiciary ideally should decide cases based only on the legal merits and shouldn't care at all about the popularity of its decisions.

 No.9974

>>9973
>Huh? The judiciary isn't "cramming right-wing ideology down the country's throat".
Have you been in a coma the past multiple years or something?

>[The] judiciary ideally should decide cases based only on the legal merits and shouldn't care at all about the popularity of its decisions.
I agree with that in principle. However, in the U.S. today, this question must be asked: if the judiciary decides to base its legal decisions on right-wing identity politics such that the free, democratic expressions of the citizenry don't matter and whether or not somebody has the individual rights to express some freedom depends on what classification they were born into, then what exactly is 'justice' anymore? Do we even have a 'democracy' if group A has more rights explicitly than group B? The courts can use the fig leaf of 'legal merits' if they want. Even though that would be a distortion at best and a lie at worst. In practical terms, though, a judiciary operating under these lines is leading the country down the road to a kind of quasi-dictatorship and undermining the very notion of Constitutional governance.

 No.9975

Have you stopped beating your wife today?

 No.9977

>>9969
>able to defy laws against their behavior?
Any belief that God would command laws to be violated is anti-religious hate.  People who violate laws in the name of God(s) are extremists, not religious.  God(s) never have and never will ask for anti-social or illegal activity, so the question is not well put.

I suppose you mean, should extremists be allowed to violate laws to serve their harmful ideologies?  I think everyone will agree, no.

 No.9978

>>9977
They're extremists, sure, but in hurting those who don't share their religion they're just doing what the Bible tells them to do=>

John 3:36 (NIV): "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them."

Thessalonians 1:8-9 (NIV): "Those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus, they will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might."

Deuteronomy 17:12 (NLT): "Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the Lord your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged."

Exodus 22:17 (NAB): "You should not let a sorceress live."

Leviticus 20:13 (NAB): "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

Exodus 22:19 (NAB): "Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed."

Deuteronomy 13:13-19 (NLT): "Suppose you hear in one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants."

Deuteronomy 13:7-12 (NAB): "If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him."

 No.9979

>>9978
The people who follow the Bible literally are NOT Christians.  It is hate-speech to say or imply they are.  Don't make me report you.

 No.9980

>>9979
Unless it's a theocracy and it's legal.  Then deviation from the literal commands would be a crime.  Hate speech would be accusing Christians of being anti-execution softies (and acting criminally on that impulse).

That's probably what you were thinking about.  Maybe I over-reacted, sorry.  But in these things we need to have clear context.

 No.9982

>>9979
>>9980
This isn't about Christianity as a belief system or Christians as people.

It's that when religious extremists hurt victims and defy the law, they pick up Bibles and go "I simply did what this book told me to do, following it literally because I think it's literally absolute truth without error."

And I don't know myself what the response should be. The U.S. government can't ban the Bible or otherwise tell people to stop reading it and believing in it. Even if they actually could do that, well, they really shouldn't, of course, since that would be dictatorial.

How do you think, yourself, authorities should stop bad people from using the Bible as a shield for doing immoral things?

 No.9984

>>9982
It's all confusing, I think.

I arrived that the realization that saying God said what He meant in writing the Bible is intolerable hate speech on my own.  It requires a few steps of deduction.

I suppose I just think culture -- maybe not authorities, exactly -- should make it clearer what religion is and isn't, and what the Bible is and isn't.

Although the clarification has to be Christians accept the Bible is the word of God.  They must also accept that God lies.  A lot.  So I'm not sure if that's possible.

So nothing's really going to happen.

 No.9992

>>9984
To be honest, the God of the Bible is one of the evilest characters in the history of literature if not the absolute worst: cheating, lying, raping, stealing, torturing, and more to the point of gleeful mass murder.

As long as the Bible isn't just seen as literature, which would mean that nobody has to obey the Bible's God any more than they'd have to obey Darth Vader or Lord Voldemort, but is instead seen as a work without error that must be taken as complete literal truth... with not a single comma or period allowed to be changed, everything having to obeyed wholesale without the slightest rational thought of doubt... as long as the Bible is on this gigantic pedestal, there's going to be suffering. No way around that. Alas.

 No.9998

>>9992
We will quickly get into "what is evil?"  Gods typically get a pass when evil is defined as powerlessness.

I suppose I share your feelings, though.  I have had a good deal of trouble trying to understand the Bible thing.

 No.9999

>>9998
Although Christianity is a weird mix.  "Blessed are the meek..."  Sometimes the religion existed in a theocracy, sometimes in a state that only tolerated it (or not ever that).

"My Kingdom is not of this world."

That's part of what makes Christianity palatable.  It's not completely: "People disobeyed Gods archaic laws so He genocided them.  Blessed be God."

But you're not really suppose to separate the parts.

 No.10008

>>9998
>>9999
No easy answers here. A simple question like "What is evil?" doesn't have a simple result in terms of thinking it through.

 No.10207

>>9969

Ultimately religion is just a group of people who have decided to act within certain principles based on their beliefs. Law is just a larger group of people who decided to do that in a more formal, logical, and malleable way. Therefore, law trumps religion in this case, in my opinion. This is especially true considering it's a matter of public health. Imagine if a new religion did something similar. Throwing up on people was part of their creed. Nobody would accept that. Christianity largely gets a pass based on popularity and age, not content.  

 No.10208

What goes in your body or on your face ought be your business, to decide for whatever reason.

 No.10209

>>10208

Sure, but the right to make that choice shouldn't exempt one from the consequences if that choice contributes to endangering others.

 No.10210

>>10209
How they respond will be their choice, but it should not be the place of the government

 No.10211

>>10210

Would you say it should be up to the people victimized by their actions, instead?

 No.10214

>>10211
I don't consider them 'victimized' to begin with, but, yes, if someone's terrified of being infected to the point of insisting someone else wear a mask or get a vaccine, that's their business.

I do not consider it to be under the purview of the state.

 No.10215

>>10214
>I don't consider them 'victimized' to begin with,

Yeah, it wasn't quite the right word I think, but you kinda got what I mean.

 No.10221

>>10214
The reality that hospitals are running low on staff and equipment due to the large influx of Covid patients and that urgent care for other illnesses are made unavailable due to this is also not under the purview of the state?

 No.10227

>>10221
Large numbers of staff are losing their jobs due to not wanting a largely untested vaccine pushed onto them when they are not at risk, contributing to the problem too.

In any case; given healthcare is not provided free of charge by the state in my nation, yes, I do not believe it is any of the state’s business.
Besides; why would obesity not apply?
If it’s a risk to,others due to overfilling of hospitals, the. Surely it ought likewise be mandated, restricted, and otherwise regulated, how one gains or loses weight.
And why stop there? There’s millions of other unhealthy behaviors people exhibit. Why not control those too?

 No.10231

>>10227
>If it’s a risk to,others due to overfilling of hospitals, the. Surely it ought likewise be mandated, restricted, and otherwise regulated, how one gains or loses weight.

Some would support this, to be sure.  Though I would personally say that the "obesity epidemic" had been going on for quite a while without filling hospitals to capacity.

 No.10232

>>10231
We’ve built around it. Supply and demand. But when crisis hits, say with COVID for instance, suddenly they’re a problem.

I don’t like where these things go, should you apply consistent logic.
So, I would rather that be the individual’s choice. Simpler, and without moral onus on the state, which has a bad habit with such things.

 No.10234

It should be noted that we'd have a much better health care system were it not for invasive government policies making multiple problems worse, such as immigration restrictions preventing Americans from using drugs and services correctly labeled as safe overseas as well as preventing talented doctors and nurses from traveling here in the first place to deliver care.

It's rather stupid to generalize the situation as either "public sector = bad" or "public sector = good".


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]