The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
What Did Governor Hochul Say About Religion!?
The statements in this COVID vaccine case are far more hostile to religion than the statements from Masterpiece Cakeshop
Today the Supreme Court denied an emergency application for injunctive relief in Dr. A. v. Hochul. This case challenged New York's vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. The policy grants medical-based exemptions, but does not permit any religious-based exemptions. Once again, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have granted relief. The others were silent.
Justice Gorsuch wrote a 14-page dissent from the denial for injunctive relief, which Justice Alito joined. Justice Thomas simply stated he would have granted the application, without a separate writing. Gorsuch finds that Governor Hochul--who recently replaced Governor Cuomo--presided over the removal of a religious exemption. And in doing so, she exhibited an animus towards religion. Here are a sample of her statements:
[T]he Governor answered that there is no "sanctioned religious exemption from any organized religion" and that organized religions are "encouraging the opposite." Ibid. Apparently contemplating Catholics who object to receiving a vaccine, Governor Hochul added that "everybody from the Pope on down is encouraging people to get vaccinated." Ibid.
Speaking to a different audience, the Governor elaborated: "How can you believe that God would give a vaccine that would cause you harm? That is not truth. Those are just lies out there on social media."
"All of you, yes, I know you're vaccinated, you're the smart ones, but you know there's people out there who aren't listening to God and what God wants. You know who they are."
Huh!? These statements are far more egregious than the innocuous statements at issue in Masterpiece Cakeshop. The First Amendment does not only protect beliefs advanced by "organized religion." Even Catholics are allowed to hold beliefs different from the Pope. Hochul said that the vaccines are "truth," and presumably beliefs to the contrary are false. And she said vaccinated people of faith are "smart." The implication is that those who oppose vaccines are stupid. And they "aren't listening to God."
Justice Gorsuch concludes that these statements support a targeting claim.
New York's mandate is such an action. The State began with a plan to exempt religious objectors from its vaccine mandate and only later changed course. Its regulatory impact statement offered no explanation for the about-face.At the same time, a new Governor whose assumption of office coincided with the change in policy admitted that the revised mandate "left off " a religious exemption "intentionally." The Governor offered an extraordinary explanation for the change too. She said that "God wants" people to be vaccinated—and that those who disagree are not listening to "organized religion" or "everybody from the Pope on down." Then the new Governor went on to announce changes to the State's unemployment scheme designed to single out for special disfavor healthcare workers who failed to comply with the revised mandate. This record gives rise to more than a "slight suspicion" that New York acted out of "animosity [toward] or distrust of " unorthodox religious beliefs and practices. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17). This record practically exudes suspicion of those who hold unpopular religious beliefs. That alone is sufficient to render the mandate unconstitutional as applied to these applicants. . . .
Rather than burden a religious exercise incidentally or unintentionally, by the Governor's own admission the State "intentionally" targeted for disfavor those whose religious beliefs fail to accord with the teachings of "any organized religion" and "everybody from the Pope on down." Even if one were to read the State's actions as something other than signs of animus, they leave little doubt that the revised mandate was specifically directed at the applicants' unorthodox religious beliefs and practices.
The Supreme Court has now given a green-light to other jurisdictions to impose vaccine mandates without any religious-based exemptions.
Justice Gorsuch also opines on how progressives view unorthodox religions with skepticism. He draws a direct link between this case, and West Virginia v. Barnette. (Another case in which the Court overruled a precedent simply because it was wrong).
Today, our Nation faces not a world war but a pandemic.Like wars, though, pandemics often produce demanding new social rules aimed at protecting collective interests— and with those rules can come fear and anger at individualsunable to conform for religious reasons. If cases like Gobitis bear any good, it is in their cautionary tale. They remind us that, in the end, it is always the failure to defend the Constitution's promises that leads to this Court's greatest regrets. They remind us, too, that in America, freedom to differ is not supposed to be "limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order." Barnette, 319U. S., at 642. The test of this Court's substance lies in its willingness to defend more than the shadow of freedom in the trying times, not just the easy ones.
Gorsuch also analogizes the path between South Bay/Tandon to Gobitis/Barnette:
We have already lived through the Gobitis-Barnette cycle once in this pandemic. . . . One can only hope today's ruling will not be the final chapter in this grim story. Cases like this one may serve as cautionary tales for those who follow. But how many more reminders do we need that "the Constitution is not to be obeyed or disobeyed as the circumstances of a particular crisis . . . may suggest"? Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 384 (1901) (Harlan, J., dissenting).
How do Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett address these arguments? They don't. The junior Justices simply hide in the shadows, presumably because this case wouldn't meet the criteria for certiorari.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yeah, Gorsuch's reasoning is nonsense. A claim of targeting requires showing that the actual action at issue was motivated by religious animus. The failure to include any religious exemption is not an action. The mandate is an action, but to claim that the mandate itself was enacted out of religious animus would require a hell of a lot more than these statements, which appear to amount to her justifying not including a religious exemption because she didn't think there was sincere religious opposition to it.
I’m a contrarian and so I believe God gave us the virus and that Satan gave us the vaccine.
Do you suppose that god did gave us the virus in order to thin out the medicare rolls and allow social security to stay afloat longer? And satan wants to spoil this and kill social security?
Where do your contrarian beliefs leave you? You could either hold some sincere religious belief in god, and not get vaccinated in order to please god (and maybe save social security), or you may have a sincerely held religious belief in satanism, and therefore you have been vaccinated in order to please satan (and maybe kill off social security).
Or any number of other potential possibilities. Religion is very flexible that way. As long as you're sincere about it, any belief is as good as any other to hold.
Religious animus may not be the cause of *any* policy decision -- whether that be an actively implemented policy, or merely a choice to not have a religious exemption.
If she simply didn't believe the opposition was sincere, you'd have a valid point. But she appeared to be judging the merit/correctness of those views, as least in part...
She is why although I supported impeaching Trump that I didn’t support his removal—the notion the replacement will be better rarely holds true. So Congress was correct to have the hearings and present the evidence and vote to impeach and then let the people decide in the election.
My own opinion is that it's pretty rare in the modern era that we have a President who doesn't merit impeachment, on the basis of failure to see the law faithfully executed, and various usurpations of power.
But the grounds they chose for Trump were total BS, because they don't actually MIND Presidents failing to uphold the law, (In fact, they were pretty pissed that he attempted to uphold immigration laws!) or usurping power, and thus responsibility.
Feel free to cite your source, I'll wait...
She doesn't get to decide whether someone's religious beliefs are reasonable or not. No government official does. "Free exercise of religion" means that the government doesn't get to decide. A minimal investigation to make sure someone isn't making things up on the spot may be warranted but nothing beyond that.
How then do people and government judge religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are personal, but we cannot always accommodate these beliefs. If people beliefs are truly important they must make decisions, like this job is not right for me. It should not be that a person job has to accommodate any and all beliefs.
If a job isn't right for you then you can get a different job. However Hochul's mandate isn't targeted to any specific job or industry that pose elevated ricks to the public, its written broadly specifically catch as many people as possible and require them to get vaccinated. Since she makes moving beyond the scope of the mandate next to impossible, accommodations must be made for people with religious exemptions.
And while her comments may not rise to the level of animus toward religion, they certainly indicate a potential establishment clause violation, as she is using her position as governor to dictate tenets of various religions of their practitioners
Feel free to cite where I claimed she does get to decide that ...
There was remarkably less executive-expressed hostility to religion there than in Trump v. Hawaii.
So many choices to distinguish that one...
What about when Obama would wag his finger at the dumb brown foreigners and Amerisplain to them that they weren’t practicing Islam properly?? Now now little Muhammad in Iraq—you should be like the two Muslims in Congress and watch RuPaul and celebrate men chopping off their balls to become women!
Indeed - the Supreme Court recently said animus has a really high bar.
This doesn't reach it.
Poor show of inconsistency by those 3 Justices.
Poor show of inconsistency by those 3 Justices.
It actually shows consistency....they are consistently results oriented jurists who then cater their argument position to the desired outcome rather than having outcomes guided by any legal principle/precedent.
They are remarkably consistent in fact.
I thought we were against judicial supremacy!? But now we want judges (who are not doctors or scientists) to tell states they can’t use their traditional police powers to take public health measures, directed specifically at healthcare workers/facilities during a pandemic in the manner they choose?
Maybe Gorsuch doesn’t understand he doesn’t get to decide that?
You’re a complete joke.
I don't think opposition to judicial supremacy necessarily means believing that there's never a role for courts to protect first amendment rights, although admittedly I don't know where the Professor would draw that line...
I mean this is one of the biggest proponents of a lawsuit to destroy the ACA through a lawsuit that was cooked up only when it Congress didn’t have the votes to repeal it in toto. I think it’s pretty obvious that it’s only judicial supremacy when it’s a policy he likes at stake. Otherwise it’s just defending rights.
Well, duh: And you wouldn't have needed Brown if the South had just repealed Jim Crow, either. Do you imagine you made some kind of point there?
Because Brown wasn't cooked up - it was legitimately about equal protection.
The janky ACA rationale was a whole new Commerce Clause doctrine.
The ACA lawsuit wasn't "cooked up", either, it was legitimately about the ACA being outside of the legitimate powers of the federal government.
Sure, it would have represented a partial restoration of pre-Wickard commerce clause doctrine, but that's only to say that it would have represented correcting a mistake. The only thing "new" about it would have been striking down an over-reach the federal government had never before had the gall to attempt.
The first ACA case. Not the nonsense third one.
Yeah, I had actually forgotten the laughable one abut no mandate is actually more unconstitutional than a mandate.
But the action/inaction broccoli business was fully a new thing.
I think it was a new application in a new situation of an existing position.
But yes, we're actually talking about the one where there was a laughably absurd lack of standing, in which the entire argument was an obviously-foreclosed-by-precedent "I want to comply with a law that I don't want to comply with, even though there's no penalty for not complying with it."
Yes. A very good one about how Josh is an absolute hypocrite about judicial supremacy: he went turned to the courts when his side very obviously didn’t have the votes to get rid of legislation. And he turned to the courts on a crackpot theory of standing that even Thomas didn’t buy, followed by a crackpot theory of severance that serious ACA opponents didn’t buy and led to an Alito dissent that was a bunch of gibberish that would fail 3rd grade social studies.
Anyone with the balls to wear a diaper and pee in the diaper while being questioned by senators is exactly the person I want ordering edicts for the masses to follow.
I’m scared to ask what this is a reference to?
Gorsuch being able to sit for a supposedly inordinate period during his confirmation hearing without demanding a bathroom break.
Which led some maniacs to conclude he was wearing adult diapers, rather than just assuming he'd had the sense to use the bathroom before sitting down.
Apparently when said maniacs were children they never went on a car trip with their parents.
If the states wanted to use their police powers to lock up all the brown people, because they have higher rates of COVID infection....
Should the judges step in?
If states want to civilly commit pregnant women and hold them in custody until birth to protect the fetus they give birth should judges step in? We can each come up with insane scenarios. But if you’re gonna complain that the people should decide and judicial supremacy is bad and courts can’t make state abortion policy….you really can’t turn around and be mad that the court isn’t making state health policy. And make no mistake: Gorsuch wants to make state health policy. He wants to tell the state that their medical and public health assessments about vaccines and risks are wrong and that these unvaccinated people have to be able to provide care.
In no way does Gorsuch want to "make state health policy".
But when people bring a complaint that the Executive policy interferes with Constitutionally granted rights, well... As a judge, he does need to uphold the Constitution.
When the State Executive's reasoning for her policy change to overrule people's religious objection is that " ""God wants" people to be vaccinated".... Well, Great Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Perhaps there's a problem here is she's taking her RELIGIOUS views, and foisting them on people who disagree with them?
In no way does Gorsuch want to "make state health policy".
Only because he’s in dissent. If his was in the majority opinion he would be because he’d be saying the state has to let these unvaccinated people provide healthcare even though the state thinks that’s a public health risk. That’s policy making.
“Perhaps there's a problem here is she's taking her RELIGIOUS views, and foisting them on people who disagree with them?”
So you agree Trump v Hawaii was wrongly decided?
because he’d be saying the state has to let these unvaccinated people provide healthcare even though the state thinks that’s a public health risk
Except the State doesn't think it's a public health risk for other, equally risky, unvaccinated people to provide healthcare. Gorsuch's opinion was simply that if you have the exception for some secular folk, you have to allow it for religious folk.
Except they do because they’re trying to reduce overall numbers. The state thinks it’s less of a risk to allow the few people with medical exemptions to keep working vs the much larger number with claimed religious issues. Gorsuch is reassessing that for them and making policy.
And you see the problem...they're making exemptions.
Why aren't the people with medical exemptions being fired?
Um maybe because they don’t have a choice?
Hmm... I think I'm beginning to see the issue.
Do you think someone who has a strongly held religious belief a choice about that belief? That they can just choose "not" to believe it?
Do you think someone who has a strongly held religious belief a choice about that belief? That they can just choose "not" to believe it?
Uh, yeah. People can and do choose what to believe all the time. Why should religion be different? Or, people at least have the ability to critically examine what they believe and the basis for it. What you seem to be suggesting is that people that have religious beliefs don't have a choice, but instead must simply accept what they have been told to believe.
Free exercise wasn’t created by judges.
This version of it was. Fulton and Tandon are recent inventions. We used to have a different rule, one that Scalia wrote in fact.
And before Scalia we had a different rule in place...
You know, in hindsight, the Scalia ruling is interesting. There were no exemptions in the Scalia case. There were zero cases where people could smoke Peyote in the context of the case, and have an exemption.
But Scalia's decision was horribly misinterpreted. It was cut finer and finer, so than a billion exemptions could be made, but as long as a single secular exemption was not allowed, and it was "comparable"...then a religious exemption could be banned as well. A religiously "neutral" law could be drawn fine enough to effectively only hit religion, and maybe one other slight bit.
Is the 'slight bit' here people with medical exemptions?
It’s a simple branch of government problem.
The NY governor made an order for a non-emergency using emergency powers granted by the legislature for emergencies.
The religious exemption is just an excuse for these people to ignore an illegal order and it justifiably was rejected. They’re using a foolish theory.
Instead, they should have raised the objection that no emergency exists and that the legislature didn’t create a law allowing non-emergency orders for such situations. The order is not worth the paper its printed on.
Over 1,000 Americans are dying per day of COVID-19; the total deaths are closing in on 800,000; it's the third-leading cause of death in the U.S. after heart disease and cancer. Yes, COVID-19 is a public health emergency in the United States.
Yes, Americans aren't immortal, this comes as a shock to some people. 7,800 Americans die every day, of various causes, to put your "over 1,000" in context.
Over 1,800 Americans are dying per day of heart disease, because it's the FIRST leading cause of death in the US. So, if Covid justifies emergency measures, what could heart disease be used to justify?
And, yes, cancer is the SECOND-leading cause of death, which makes it doubly ironic that one of the emergency measures resorted to for the THIRD-leading cause of death was closing hospitals to heart disease and cancer patients to make room for Covid patients.
That's the reason rational people to say, "To hell with these emergency measures, I want my freedom back!" Because if Covid justifies police state measures, what kind of totalitarian state will they eventually leverage heart disease and cancer to obtain?
A contagious disease is a collective action problem. It is not one solved by just letting individuals decide their own risk, because they're not just deciding their own risk.
We live in a republic where the people have a voice in who makes decisions when confronted with such issues. That you disagree with your lawmakers doesn't mean you get to just say to hell with the decisions your elected officials have made.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Do these words mean anything, Sarcastr0?
They don't mean yelling 'LIBERTY!' at laws you don't like isn't ridiculous.
I gotta obey laws I don't like just as you do.
I firmly believe there should be tailored religious exemptions to these restrictions. I do not believe they are Constitutionally required.
Heart disease is largely caused by diet, which is another collective action problem. If people couldn't order calorie-dense food and drink at fast food joints or greasy spoons, but could only buy healthy vegetable-heavy salads or grilled entrees, they would be a lot healthier.
No, diet is not a collective action problem.
Do you know what a collective action problem is?
Sure, a collective action problem is where government insists on collectivizing individual costs, and then declares this entitles them to order people about. That's what they are in practice, whatever the theory might be.
You know, you might have some sort of point about collective action problems, if the measures being imposed had actually demonstrated any effectiveness. There was no statistically significant difference in the pandemic between states that did and didn't impose lockdowns or mask mandates.
"That's what they are in practice, whatever the theory might be."
I don't think he asked for your politically motivated, idiosyncratic definition.
And that 'study' by an investments expert is countered by others from the relevant fields.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32153-X/fulltext
Making up your own definition to conform with your worldview is some Trotskyite bullshit.
Your lack of engagement with my point is also telling.
It would be for the NYS Court of Appeals to decide whether this state action is authorized under state law, not the Supreme Court of the United States. There's no Article III jurisdiction for a dispute between a state and its own citizen regarding what a state law means.
Even if your argument had substantive merit, whether this is in the powers granted to Hochul is a question of state law, not the U.S. constitution.
Our courts can't determine religious sincerity or burdens, just hostility to religions.
Actually, I think they are allowed to determine sincerity - even by most conservative/libertarian standards - but they cannot base that determination on whether it seems reasonable to a nonbeliever.
Senator Sasse remarked about Gorsuch’s amazing ability to not have to take bathroom breaks during his hearings…my theory is he was wearing a diaper like Astronauts and NASCAR drivers.
Shockingly, (I keep telling my 13 year old son this at Church.) some people actually use the bathroom before doing stuff that they can't interrupt.
And they can't base it on how in line the stated belief is with the tenets of the faith the person claims to follow. They aren't allowed to say, "you're doing your own religion wrong."
Medical exemptions are for those who could have serious medical problems if they take the vaccine. But these vaccines are quite safe and there should be very few medical exemptions. They are there for those who CANT take the vaccine.
Religious exemptions are for those who don't WANT to take the vaccine. Big difference.
Look, I don't share the objectors' view here...but I do empathize with religious objectors in general, because I have religious views than nonbelievers often think is just my arbitrary preference or some such...
The fact is, from the perspective of a believer, they cannot "choose" to not have their faith any more than people of various other identity groups could "choose" to not be who *they* are. You're certainly free to think they're just deluding themselves, but the first amendment requires government neutrality between your view and theirs (just like it requires neutrality about other belief systems). Meaning, the government may not adopt the view that religious belief is a choice.
Moreover, SCOTUS recently reaffirmed (unanimously) that burdening religion is subject to "the strictest" scrutiny - which at the very least would require a narrower tailoring of the mandate than New York is currently offering.
Government needs to be neutral in regards to religion. What we are seeing is religious given special privileges to disregard laws they don't like.
One way government can discriminate against religious minorities is by making "neutral" laws that seem only to impact those with religious issues.
Those laws would be unconstitutional.
Kinda like the decision we have here...
Then you are not reading the cases. When you give exemptions for some reasons but deny them for religious ones, then you are not giving religion "special privileges."
I don’t see how it can get much narrower. This is targeted towards people working in healthcare. People who are in contact with vulnerable populations in places where the need to control the spread of disease is of paramount importance.
Many people in health care don't necessarily have direct contact with patients.
Are they in a hospital setting? Or a care facility interacting with the public and other providers who do interact with patients?
"Are they in a hospital setting?"
Yes.
So then it’s narrowly tailored, glad you’re agree.
*you
My wife works at a dental office as an assistant for surgical dentistry. That's pretty close contact with patients, many of whom are elderly. The office did NOT require her to get vaccinated.
As they said, she's already required to us personal protective gear, and not the silly cloth masks my own employer distributed, real medical grade N-95 masks, and shields, gloves and frequent washing. And they're not into public health theater.
Vaccines aren’t public health theater.
Mandating vaccination for health care providers who are already using proper sterile procedure is.
I’m going to add epidemiology to the ever growing list of things you think you understand but don’t. I mean do you not realize how ridiculous you sound in this situation? The world’s infectious disease experts, people who study this for their entire lives say that vaccines are the best way to stop the spread of COVID. And then you come along with a gem like, “Well I know a guy who thinks that’s theater, and he would know, he’s a DENTIST.”
Absolutely beyond parody.
Except the CDC's and FDA's own data show that the vaccine has no or minimal effect on contagiousness or spread, but reduce the effects and symptoms.
When many of these groups are saying what they say for explicitly political reasons, you need to look at the raw data.
And while the raw data does show that it is wise to get vaccinated, it does not support that vaccination reduces spread, which undermines any moral requirement for a mandate.
Look at raw data I am completely unqualified to analyze because the last biology class I took was over ten years ago and then use that for motivated reasoning to reach the conclusion I want? Pass.
"And while the raw data does show that it is wise to get vaccinated, it does not support that vaccination reduces spread, which undermines any moral requirement for a mandate."
https://tenor.com/view/anton-chigurh-no-country-for-old-men-you-dont-know-what-youre-talking-about-chigurh-what-are-you-talking-about-gif-22463397
"The world’s infectious disease experts, people who study this for their entire lives say that vaccines are the best way to stop the spread of COVID. "
Yeah, except for the ones that don't.
That's a damned lie. Brett is not citing a dentist. He's citing a dental assistant.
We don't need seat belts and air bags for careful drivers!
How can you believe that God would give a vaccine that would cause you harm?
Strange. I thought the vaccines were from Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson. If the vaccines are from God, why are those companies getting large checks each month from the government?
I'm not religious our anti-vax, but the governor's argument is ridiculous.
How can you believe that God would give a disease that would cause you harm?
That part was silly. On the other hand, some religious believe lions were vegetarians until the Garden of Eden got broken up by human corruption, which poisoned everything.
What is your evidence to the contrary ?
Panther leo sinhaleyus is an extinct subspecies of lion found in Sri Lanka that went extinct around 39,000 years ago. The earliest fossils recognisable as lions were found at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania and are estimated to be up to 2 million years old. This is inconsistent with the Garden of Eden narrative, which, combined with subsequent tales in the same volume, puts the creation of Earth at about 6,000 years ago. The fossil evidence says that the Garden of Eden narrative is not historically accurate.
If you had an unedited copy of the old testament you'd know that God planted misleading fossils into the earth on the fourth day. You know, as a goof. Same God who throws frogs at people, so I think the sense of humor tracks.
I grew up in the church and participated in religious discussions my entire life. I have literally never heard this claim as "something I believe". It is always "something those crazies believe so let's mock them".
Just like the droit de seigneur, it seems to be something that everyone knows exists somewhere else, but no one actually has it themselves.
This is the epitome of many modern conservatives "I never heard of it my life so it must not exist!"
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A29-30
On the other hand, some religious believe lions were vegetarians until the Garden of Eden got broken up by human corruption, which poisoned everything.
Which makes her statement no less pants-on-head stupid.
"How do Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett address these arguments? They don't. The junior Justices simply hide in the shadows..."
This is a bit harsh...they might not be sure of exactly how best to expand upon Masterpiece yet, or they might want to wait for a better vehicle to further develop/clarify this area of law...
NY'ers at least those who are Catholic and "ethnic" need to leave. The yenta class has intimidated, attacked, and marginalized Catholics for decades in NY.
I took the yenta class pass/fail because it looked hard and I didn't want my GPA to take a hit.
The problem people like me have, people who are now sick and tired of the 'holier than thou' crowd claiming a sincerely held religious objection to the vaccinations is that we do not see how a sincerely held religious objection can be held by anyone who is sincerely religious.
Christianity is a religion derived from Judiasm. The core of Judaism is that which is expoused by Rabbi Akila about 2,000 years ago that one should not do to one's neighbor that which one would not want done to themself.
Since it must be true that a rational person would not want their neighbor to infect them with a deadly disease, it follows that to be true to the core belief of Judiasm/Christianity, one would not want to infect others with a deadly plague. Thus a person can be sincerely religious, or they can reject a vaccination, but they cannot be both.
There is a Yiddish expression, which translated says
"God does not command people to do stupid things".
And what can be stupider than refusing a vaccine that would prevent the individual from exposing themselves, their family and their friends to the ravages of Covid-19.
And if the vaccine actually prevented any such thing, you would have a point. As is plain, it doesn't.
Oh well, SCOTUS has already secured its place as Taney 2.0 with its election gutlessness. This simply provides additional evidence.
It’s strange how nobody cares about Tandy’s statues being taken down??
Speaking of irrational (and yet apparently sincerely held) faith-based beliefs....
That is kinda what vaccines do, they reduce the risk of getting, spreading, and severe symptoms of covid. After a year of data we know it works.
Putting aside for the moment the efficacy cliff effect now being seen in jab-early-jab-often countries like Israel and the UK, you moved OP's goalpost from "prevent" to "reduce." Plugging "reduce" (particularly when unquantified) into OP's histrionic rant just doesn't work.
"Reduce" has always been the goal. The notion that the vaccines were supposed to be 100% or else they are worthless is a Republican lie.
I'll bet you at least a nickel Sidney isn't a Republican.
LoB, cases are granular. Every reduction of Covid is based on discrete preventions of cases.
By mathematical definition. But again, this is a completely different proposition than the Finkel froth above.
No, you're being a pedant and presuming prevent means 100%.
That is what "prevent" means. "Protect against" is appropriate when the degree of protection is not practically 100%.
Sure, like Vitamin C prevents a cold. That means 100%!
Context clues, my man.
Lol. "Only you can protect against forest fires!"
A rational position: I do not want the government to point a gun at my neighbor and make them get a medical treatment they are opposed to Mr. holier-than-the-holier-than-thou!
I do not want the government to "point a gun at my neighbor" and make them receive a COVID vaccine.
I might, however, rationally want the government to require the staff of the assisted living facility where my mother resides be fully vaccinated against COVID, the flu, and other transmissible diseases that could kill my mother (with a higher-than-average likelihood), on threat of termination.
Threat of termination -- do you mean that literally, with a gun, or figuratively, backed up by threat of using the gun?
Do you think every time someone is fired or laid off it's with the threat of using a gun?
If you operate your business contrary to the vaccine mandate and try to let people choose, eventually someone will show up with the guns.
All government action is based on force and the threat of violence.
Since no one is doing that here, then your position is irrelevant. If you don't want to get a vaccine to reduce the risk you would pose to the people you'd be taking care of as a healthcare worker, then do a different job.
All government action is based on force and threat of violence.
Sidney,
I'm all for vaccines, and I'm not arguing for religious exemptions, but I gotta say, pretty much everything in your post is either wrong or at best question begging.
First off, whenever you say,"no truly religious person could believe X" you're wrong no matter what X is. The whole point of religion is that it can make you believe anything. Can a truly religious person believe that unless you're dunked in water by a certain kind of guy, God will have you tortured... forever? Or if you blow yourself up and take a bunch of schoolchildren with you, you'll get to have sex with 72 virgins forever (don't worry how they stay forever-virgins while fulfilling their eternal sex slave duties that I forced upon them in my mercy. I do really cool tricks with virgins. I'm God. It's kind of my thing)? I'm sure you can think of some other fun examples yourself.
And the religious people in this context are doing nothing to their neighbors that they wouldn't want done to them. They don't believe they're putting people in danger. They might be objectively wrong, but that changes nothing about their intent or belief.
"God does not command people to do stupid things"
Have you read your own book? Go slaughter everyone in that tribe over there because they're into idols when they should be paying attention to me! I'm not saying the sequel to that book is any better, what with inventing the concept of eternal torture and all, but the old testament tells tales of a pretty whacky all powerful deity, giving orders that were far more questionable than "don't take a vaccine if aborted fetuses had anything to with their development, even indirectly."
Unless, by the phrase "God does not command people to do stupid things" you are simply begging the question in the same way that people say, "everything God does is good by definition because God is doing it." In which case, God could tell people not to get vaccinated, and then by definition it's not stupid. But you're not allowing for that. You're asserting as self-evident that your own standard of stupidity is the same as God's. The same God who kills first born children and throws frogs at people rather than using one of his other infinite magic powers to accomplish the same goal in a far more efficient and way less gross way. Are you really arrogant enough to assume you know what THAT God thinks is stupid?
Sydney, where you say "Rabbi Akila" I think you mean "Rabbi Akiva", but I think you are confusing Akila/Akiva with Hillel.
Yes, I do mean Rabbi Akiva. But you know, all that happened a long time ago and different people attribute the core belief of Judaism to different Rabbi's. But the point is, whoever declaimed it, that is the core of our Judeo-Christian ethic.
To answer all of the posts, look, given the widespread (although minority) opposition to vaccination against Covid I personally,
1. Do not think government forcing vaccination is correct.
2. Do think, as a conservative with libertarian tendencies, that a private employer may impose whatever legal requirements they wish on their employees, and government , with respect to vaccination, should not interfere in private business decisions. Isn't that a core of conservatism?
3. That if a person wishes to decline vaccination, they can do so and should just admit that they are a selfish and uncaring about the health, welfare and safety of their fellow man and to the extent they want to claim 'sincerely' held religious beliefs they ought to just admit the hypocrisy. The rest of us are sick and tired of their whining, their persecution complex, and their failure of the sacrifice a small inconvenience for the betterment of the community. Go away religious hypocrites, don't take the vaccine and go away.
One problem with holding Hochul's comments as evidence of anything is that she wasn't Governor when the mandate was enacted. Cuomo still was.
So why stick her neck out with what is clearly animus?
Well, to be fair, she seems kinda dumb to me.
I just don't think it's any kind of evidence that New York intended religious animus with the mandate because she wasn't in power and she made these comments well after it was enacted.
Maybe if the argument was that it's being enforced in such a way, but that's not the argument being made here I don't think.
I think that's a fair point if her comments displaying animus are the reason why it's unconstitutional. If she had said nothing, would that have changed Gorsuch's legal opinion on the matter?
Is the intent of the law all that matters? I mean, I'm not making a case for or against the mandate, but clearly the failure to allow for a religious exemptions had absolutely nothing to do with animus towards religion, any more than a lack of vegan exemption is due to animus towards veganism.
"So why stick her neck out with what is clearly animus?"
What she said certainly seems stupid to me, but how does it clearly show animus toward religion?
Which is irrelevant because she chose to maintain the policyholder.
An elected official is entitled -- should be encouraged, even -- to call an antisocial, uneducated, gullible, virus-flouting, disaffected, lethally reckless, belligerently ignorant, at-the-fringe clinger an antisocial, uneducated, gullible, disaffected, lethally reckless, belligerently ignorant, at-the-fringe clinger.
Others are entitled to wallow in political correctness, of course.
I regularly encourage politicians to loudly, with a megaphone on the edge of a building, state clearly their intentions, especially right before an election.
Do not be shy! Let the electorate know exactly what you intend to do!
It’s very simple.
Animosity means you get out of Smith and go back to regular pre-Smith strict scrutiny analysis.
Under strict scrutiny analysis, vaccination passes. It simply doesn’t matter if some state officials made some unfortunate comments. Compelling interest isn’t affected by what state officials say.
Only when compelling interest fails - when the state would lose pre-Smith - does animosity matter. Since animosity removes Smith’s additional flexibility allowed states and reverts to the compelling interest standard, if the state loses the compelling interest standard it loses.
And that’s the difference between this case and Masterpiece Cakeshop. A state has a compelling interest in vaccination. It does not have a compelling interest in what Masterpiece Cakeshop was about. That’s why New York still wins here but Masterpiece Cakeshop won there.
If Alito realizes this, he may decide that Masterpiece Cakeshop wasnmt such a meaningless case for social conservatives after all.
Of course, there’s another obvious big difference. Even when the state state has a compelling interest in regulating your behavior, you still have a right to a fair hearing. Intemperate remarks by judicial officers can make hearings unfair. But intemperate remarks by politicians do not necessarily invalidate otherwise obviously valid laws.
A state has a compelling interest in stopping false advertising and perpetuating the free flow of commerce…allowing licensed business owners to define words however they choose and turn away lawful paying customers is a very dumb way for an economy to operate.
What about those who think ordering non-consenting to participate in economic intercooler.
When I was young, "What consenting adults do in private is none of the government's business." Because there were people who wanted to tell gay men that they cannot sodomize each other in private.
Weddings are a big business with gays in Manhattan and LA setting the trends nationwide for over the top expensive weddings. I refer to hetero weddings as “gay weddings” because they are the gayest events in America.
I have to disagree.
Weddings tend to be the most stressed and angry events.
Funerals for rich uncles and wicked witches that no one cared about are the gayest events.
I believe you know the Ding Dong song.
Did you fall asleep and miss King v. Burwell?
For that matter, did you forget the Supreme Court recently finding animus analysis had a very high bar?
Vaccination qua vaccination, or vaccination that does materially more good than harm? Surely the word "compelling" must do some sort of work along those lines.
To sharpen the question, would a state have a compelling interest in administering a (hypothetical, kids -- calm down) vaccine with an efficacy rate of 5%, and an adverse effect rate of 75%? Why or why not?
Look, this is an old one. Like rich and poor, young and old, and thousands of other things that are opposite ends of spectrums, there’s no obvious natural line between “effective” and “ineffective.” Any precise boundary is going to be somewhat artificial and arbitrary. And yet even though there is no agreed upon specific number of coins so that a person with that number is rich and one with one fewer is poor, the concepts of rich and poor are still useful. (See Zeno’s paradox.) Same with effective and ineffective. The fact thst there is no sharp boumdary - your efforts to sharpen and arrive at one are as doomed to failure as an effort to sharpen water - doesn’t prevent these concepts from being useful.
Question for Professor Blackman. The Rev. Martin Luther King repeatedly said that God hates racists and segregation is a sin. Congress made a holiday for him and made clear his ideas ideas were behind the Civil Rights Act.
Can the KKK sue on grounds that the Civil Rights Act represents nothing more than an establishment of Rev. King’s theological animosity towards their religious beliefs?
If not, how would you distinguish that case from this?
Or perhaps more pointedly, how do you distinguish Trump v Hawaii, at least in reference to the discussion of the significance of statements by a Presidential candidate and his advisors for facially neutral acts that the issuing body otherwise has the authority to do?
Remember that the list of nations was the product of Obama and a previous Congress
Which fact was not germane to the rule established by the Court.
Citizens of foreign countries in foreign countries are not subject to the First Amendment.
But Americans are. Some of whom had relatives affected by the ban. And we had a government official, the President, saying one religion sucked and turned that into policy.
I’ll draw the strongest possible analogy to abortion just to make the point. Only persons can have a religion so far as the constitution is concerned. Just as a non-person may physically resemble a human person (think 8 month fetus), non-persons may do things that resemble religion. But unless persons are involved, it’s not religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.
So dissing the beliefs and practices of the foreign non-person is no more offending against “religion” in a constitutional sense, then crushing the skull of the 8-month fetus non-person is offending against “life” in a constitutional sense. No person’s religion is offended, no person loses their life, no person is caused any harm.
Even though both may have relatives who are US persons who don’t like it.
A good point.
You just got rid of the Establishment clause then.
"But Americans are."
-Which is why I said Citizens of foreign countries.
I'll make this simple. American laws apply to American Citizens and/or American Territory. American laws do not apply to foreign citizens in foreign countries.
Armchair, I’ll make this simpler: the establishment clause applies at home
But people in other countries who are trying to immigrate to the US...
Aren't in the US.
See how this works?
No. You don’t understand the establishment clause. Would you say it would be permissible to ban Catholics from entering the country?
Citizens of foreign countries in foreign countries are not subject to the First Amendment.
If it's government action, regardless of where or on whom it occurs, 1A applies.
1A says Congress shall make no law; it doesn't have an exception.
Are you thinking of the 4A or due process?
Good thing "Congress" didn't make any law.
...the fuck?
Do you think Executive action is not subject to judicial review just like Congressional action is?
Why are you arguing with the grey box?
That was just TrumpLaw, any other President and they'd have noticed that the list provided poorly correlated with religion, and actually made sense in regards to the proffered motivation for it. But, because it was Trump, the presumption of animus prevailed.
Hypothetical double standards sure are easy to prove!
Any other president wouldn’t campaign on explicitly anti-Muslim animus. The court has to sweep what he said about Muslims away so there isn’t a first amendment problem. But now those same justices are very interested in what Hochul had to say about religion and are crying “animus!” And she didn’t even say anything close to what Trump said about Muslims.
It was 'TrumpLaw' because of the things Trump said. That's how animus is shown.
1) Reverend King is not a government official.
But the holiday named after him is surely evidence of the government establishing his views. No other federal holiday is named specifically for an ordained minister and head of a religious movement.
And there were plenty of people in Congress and government officials quoting him, including the religious stuff about it being a sin against God.
I've heard tell that Jesus was the head of some religious movement. We named a holiday after him.
Sometimes, a government holiday celebrates an individual's acts, rather than fully endorsing all of the views the person held.
For example, Washington's birthday or Columbus day...doesn't mean the government endorses slavery.
Which KKK groups claim a religious basis for their bigoted beliefs? What is the nature of that basis?
What exceptions to the general rules of the Civil Rights Act would supposedly require analogous exceptions for the KKK? Who denied those exceptions?
If you're going to explore a hypothetical, make it one that we can fully examine.
You might want to google 'Blood in the face'
Can someone direct me to what they consider the bear and most thoughtful argument in favor of a religious obligation not to receive a COVID vaccine? (I'm not especially interested in an argument against all vaccinations, but I'll take it if that's the best you've got.)
You mean one that’s grounded in a widely accepted doctrinal tradition? Because I assume any individual person could make a “thoughtful” and internally coherent case for a religious obligation not to take the vaccine based on an idiosyncratic belief system that only applies to themselves and no one else.
If that's the best anyone's got, I'll take it.
Every claim I've seen so far seems pretty patently insincere and contrived, but I want to see the best case before I completely write it off.
This doesn’t answer your question, but I think this is a thoughtful exploration of how
Christian Scientists approach vaccines generally and Covid-19 in particular.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/community/articles/christian-scientists-consider-covid-19-vaccinations
Notably, despite privileging prayer over medicine and vaccines generally, they don’t think there is a doctrinal obligation not to get vaccinated.
I think the most popular goto issue is that the vaccines were developed using the cells of aborted fetuses. Not the original cells directly, but still... that's the argument I believe.
I can only do the second for you, published in the journal aptly named Vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23499565/
Found exactly two: Christian Scientists and the Dutch Reformed Church. And neither is universal. Some Christian Scientists, like its founder, say to get the vaccines and then rely on one's faith to prevent anything bad. In the case of the Dutch Reformed Church some members believe vaccines to be gifts from God and take them as a result.
It's never been a requirement in the U.S. from what I understand, states simply waived through most anyone who filed a religious objection (and some states don't even ask what religion) because it's never been big enough numbers to matter until now.
And now it doesn’t matter because government officials mostly just do vindictive or theatrical witch-doctor-type shit and ignore whether it works and who it hurts.
Vaccine research was conducted using stem cell lines from aborted children is one of the arguments.
Subjecting your body, made in the image of Christ, to unapproved, and only partially tested vaccines would be another. (remember ENERGENCY USE ONLY!) Remember, many religious objections are to these specific vaccines, not all vaccines.
You may agree or not, but those are the main religious objections.
Long,
I get the first argument. Seems kinda dopey to me. But then; most religions have lots of things that seem dopey to non-believers. But the second argument makes no sense to me. In your 2nd argument, it seems like you're saying, "My religion forbids me from being vaccinated with something that has been tested for 9 months, on millions of people. But, something that has been tested for 18 months (or whatever), on 2x-more millions of people? . . . well, my religion is just fine with that." That kind of argument would be laughable, no? And I'm similarly failing to understand the "made in the image of Christ" point. Is it that God and/or Christ would be fine with drugs that have been approved for all general uses, but not with drugs approved--so far--for only emergency-use circumstances? Boy, that seems like a weak reed to hold on to.
Who would've guessed that Christ's teaching required his followers to heed selected parts of the FDA approval process for vaccines?
Government shouldn't have the power to inject substances into your bloodstream. That's true whether someone has a religious, philosophical, medical, scientific, or other reason or no reason for objecting to injecting a particular substance, or whether someone has any such objection to injecting substances generally without particularity, or even whether anybody objects to voluntarily injecting a substance or not.
However what should be is not always what is, and people disagree. So one thing that's clear is that people should have self-government in this regard, in that the government is decentralized and the government decision is made at as local a level as possible, so that people actually have a voice and a say and some semblance of self-government.
You're way out of the mainstream. Your idiosyncratic extremism doesn't beat smallpox.
"You're way out of the mainstream."
How so? 57% of voters say the federal government should not have the power to make vaccinations mandatory.
"our idiosyncratic extremism doesn't beat smallpox."
On the one hand, this government power could be considered necessary in the case of some extremely deadly disease, as you imply.
On the other hand, this government power could be misused toward corruption, profit, rent-seeking, etc. The harm from this could range from purely economic to severe bodily injury, and the culpability could range from mere negligence to recklessness to outright malice.
How to solve this? Self-government, I guess.
We aren't a direct democracy.
You didn't have a limitation in your initial fulmination. I don't see any logic that requires one now, just line drawing.
In which case, the way we do things in America is that the line is drawn not by you but by our policymakers.
I don't know what dystopian scenarios you are calling up with your counterfactual speculation, but the very fact that you need to go there shows your principled argument does not actually have any principle to it, just emotion. Which is why you end with just pounding on the table about fiction.
Most of your comment doesn't make any sense to me, but anyway, history would suggest that it's safe to assume any government power that can be misused in some way will eventually be misused in whatever way it can be. You're free to disagree and assert that This Time It's Different™ and we've finally found our wise philosopher-kings in the form of the D.C. bureaucracy.
I just happen to think government does not need to be forcing vaccines on anyone, since the more a vaccine is necessary the more people will be motivated to voluntarily get it. You're the one dreaming up counterfactual dystopian scenarios to support your point. There is also a long history both old and recent of bad medical treatments, examples of bad vaccines that harmed people, and similar harms being perpetrated.
"...smallpox"
Covid ain't smallpox. If we were in the midst of a smallpox epidemic the fights would be over who got vaccinated first, not whether vaccination ought to be mandatory.
It's contentious precisely because the risk is large enough that some people (quite reasonably) fear it, and other people (also reasonably) don't (or are more risk averse to new vaccines than to the disease itself). Make it less dangerous (typical flu) and mandates aren't on the table, make it more dangerous (measles crossed with ebola) and people will be fighting for the vaccine.
My personal risk assessment was that risk-sub-vaccine was much less than risk-sub-covid, and we were waitlisted all over town for the vaccine, but I also don't favor society being too heavy handed about forcing others to do the same. There will come a time when a vaccine doesn't work - IIUC there was a vaccine trialed in the ??1950's?? that actually increased susceptibility to the disease. There was swine flu which turned out quite a bit less of a problem than the early rhetoric indicated. Credibility is hard to acquire and easy to lose, and someday a pandemic much worse than covid will come along. We risk hardening attitudes today in ways that will hurt us then.
ML's argument is much much more sweeping than Covid.
The issue is that your personal risk assessment isn't actually your personal risk assessment with dealing with infectious diseases.
There has been a WW-2 like jump in antiviral biotechnology. I'm actually more optimistic now about that sort of thing.
None of the policies at issue involve the government injecting anything into anyone.
Pedantic.
Not pedantic. The forcible administration of vaccines by the government may well raise substantive due process issues as to the right to bodily integrity a la Rochin v. California.
Perhaps that is why no one is proposing forcible administration.
The law can be pedantic. Or arbitrary, selectively applied, subjective, etc.
So what the government cannot do to you directly, they can make you do under threat of fines and imprisonment. Right?
Or, perhaps they can make you do it under threat of losing your livelihood, being unable to engage in commerce, and so on. And the government can, under threat of fines and imprisonment, require all employers and persons engaged in business, to in turn require things of all their employees and customers, under threat of losing livelihood and the ability to engage in commerce, that the government could not otherwise do or require directly. Yeah?
My read is that the majority of the justices supported mandating vaccines of healthcare workers, and no one really cares about the law in a foxhole.
Josh, you write constantly about the evils of trying to put pressure on the justices, but here you are, again and again, making snarky comments about the three conservative justices who don't always go as far as you want on these issues.
Gorsuch's such a moron that his argument barely deserves attention, much less any parallel to Masterpiece Cakeshop (itself an attempt to push forward protections for religious beliefs without revolutionizing the relevant area of law).
But Kavanaugh and Barrett's reticence here is easy to understand. They're not "cowering" from some kind of silly argument, that Hochul's roughly contemporaneous statements are properly linked to NY's change in policy. They're trying to establish a rule on what can still constitute a "facially neutral" and "generally applicable" law without going to the extreme of saying that any law with exceptions must provide such an exception to those with some requisite level of religious belief. The Court has opened a whole can of worms, here, by suggesting in various non-binding opinions that a "most favored nation" rule might have to apply to religious exemptions, and Barrett and Kavanaugh seem capable of seeing - in a way that Gorsuch is not capable of understanding, and in a way neither Alito nor Thomas seem to care about - that too extreme a rule will undercut a whole lot more of our law than just some vaccine mandates.
I get that you are a partisan hack and a polemicist, Josh, so it's not in your interest to think carefully about these issues. But that's what's driving the sensible conservatives here.
“Most favored nation”—nobody cared that lockdowns prevented my Satanic coven from having a full 13 member circle to properly perform rituals…we were trying to end the pandemic so it is just counterproductive to have protocols that prevent me from literally stopping the pandemic. God started the pandemic and then Fauci prevented the Horned One from ending it!
But the vaccine does not stop the spread OR keep one from getting the illness. So how does it advance the asserted public health rationale?
They only care about the story of what the vaccine does. What it actually does is less emotionally satisfying, so they ignore that.
Wrong. " Vaccinated people can still become infected and have the potential to spread the virus to others, although at much lower rates than unvaccinated people. "
But the vaccine does not stop the spread OR keep one from getting the illness
'If it's not 100%, it's useless!'
They'll always work just well enough so leftists feel justified in bullying people to be vaccinated, but never even close to well enough to lift the "emergency" that leftists use to justify bullying everyone 20 other ways.
So all the numbers are carefully faked by leftists who love the lockdown? That's what you think?
I' not Ben, but a more charitable reading is 'The vaccine is XX% effective at reducing hospitalizations/deaths/transmission/whatever, and XX is high enough some people will feel justified to push people to be vaccinated, but also low enough that some people will feel justified in pushing for mask mandates/yadda'.
And that's probably true, for a wide range of values of XX. For a similar example, MADD sometimes advocates for some pretty low BAC levels. Some people have very low risk tolerances[1].
FWIW, my sense is that people, left and right, are gradually coming to terms with the notion that covid is going to be endemic, and we're going to make our peace with it like we do the rest of the microbial zoo out there.
[1]and they can be pretty wacky about it, e.g. I have known people who are extraordinarily cautious about some things, but are also heavy smokers/morbidly obese/etc.
It's going to become endemic (the data isn't in, but initial takes on Omicron give me some hope that's coming sooner rather than later), but it's not there yet.
And the world is working to ensure that transition will be minimally fatal.
That a partisan part of the US has made it their identity to doubt/not care about that is interesting, but does not move me.
What numbers?
How many people died as a result of the vaccine? It's not a number we are allowed to know.
How many healthy vaccinated people under 80 were hospitalized with Covid? They'll never tell us.
There was a controlled study that showed masks are at best 11% effective. We didn't learn about that from public health authorities.
Where’s the data on the percentage of the population with some form of immunity? Nowhere.
What percentage of outbreaks happen as the result of a vaccinated person infecting others? It’s a secret.
What is the quantifiable benefit of "slowing the spread" in 2021? So someone gets infected in December instead of October because we "slowed the spread". How are public health authorities measuring the dubious benefit of that accomplishment? They aren't.
We are supposed to get vaccinated because else there will be more mutations. Where’s the study on that? What's the plan to get Africans vaccinated? India? China (with a vaccine that actually works)? What's the significance of a comparative few unvaccinated American versus a huge number elsewhere? No studies.
Because the answers can't be used to make life worse for Americans.
You're starting to go loopy, Blackman. By your rationale had the NY Gov said that the vaccines were good, it would imply that those against it were bad. Grow the F up .
The "religious exemptions" claimed are bogus and animosity toward the fakers is completely justified.
While I make no judgement here about the objective truth of your assertion, I do agree that you're correct that this indeed was the assertion the Governor was making. She wasn't effectively making any coherent argument against a religious exemption. She was questioning the religious sincerity of anyone who would try and take advantage of it if it existed. Her opinion on that matter should have no relevance when it comes to whether or not the mandate, without a religious exemption, passes constitutional muster.
Assuming a lack of a market for sincere religious objectors is in no way a consideration for law makers when deciding whether to have the exemption or not. In theory at least, it's for the courts to decide if someone is sincere when they try to take advantage of the exemption. The argument for not having a religious exemption has to be that there's a compelling state interest in not allowing an exemption for even the TOTALLY sincere.
Oh man. Judge Ho coming in hot with the worst COVID related dissent today. Challenge to United Airlines vaccine mandate under Title VII. No religious exception. Wants to provide preliminary injunctive relief. Complains they’re discriminating against Christians around Christmas and finds that particularly offensive.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-11159-CV0.pdf
This is bonkers stuff that is completely out of step with Title VII remedies. He tries to distinguish “garden variety claims” where money damages is appropriate relief vs the irreparable harm of “loss of livelihood.” WHAT? That’s the same issue in every damn Title VII case where someone suffers an adverse employment action. WTF is he talking about?!!
Judge Ho has been sipping the Christmas eggnog unusually-early this year.
(Given his reference to Christmas: there's gotta be a "Judge Ho-ho-ho" joke in here somewhere.)
"The Governor offered an extraordinary explanation for the change too. She said that "God wants" people to be vaccinated— "
Damned if that doesn't sound like an establishment to me.
Odd. She did exactly what I recommend politicians do in exactly this situation: point out major religions favor vaccines and other medical treatments.
I'd go one further, and point out that to not accept treatment is basically putting God to the test, which you are not supposed to do. "We could do it, but if you want it done, God, you do it!"
Golly gee whiz.
Why do you recommend that politicians do this? Do you think it will persuade anyone that they're wrong about their own beliefs? I imagine that most religious people already know what many people of their same faith believe about vaccines. If they found the pro-vaccine people's religious arguments to be the most persuasive, they'd have already been persuaded.
And how exactly do we know what religions favor when it comes to this vaccine? Perhaps the Pope is the one and only arbiter of what the Roman Catholic Church favors, but with all the rest, it probably depends on what preacher you listen to.
Alas, it does not depend on what preacher you listen to. That would be too easy.
It depends only on you, on what is in your own heart, and on what conduct your own religious scruples—arrived at forthrightly, by belief in established religious doctrine, or arrived at mysteriously, by inexplicable personal insight—dictate that government permit you to do. Whatever that may be, the law according to Gorsuch demands government to make whatever inquiry is necessary to fully inform itself of your religious conduct needs, and to tailor legal enforcement of any and all laws to maximize your ability to practice that conduct.
As a practical matter, the case-by-case tailoring requirement becomes a bar to enforcement of any law of general applicability, if religious people claim scruples about it, and then Gorsuch says so. For folks who do not object if the nation becomes a theocracy, religious liberty thus becomes a powerful, all-purpose tool to constrain government, and to maximize personal liberty, for religionists.
For others, who are not religionists, it works a differently. For them, liberty of self-government is what gets constrained. So called libertarians rejoice at the withdrawal of that liberty. Liberty of self-government is the liberty which libertarians loathe. Believing as so many do that their rights come from God, they feel no need for a secular power residing among the People to wield against government, and thus to guard their rights against government abuse. That libertarians' theories posit government to be at once the source of threats to their rights—and at the same time the protector of their rights—and that at all times God proves unavailing—matters not at all to them. They are fans of paradox, and propose to govern by it.
Libertarians recognize that what you call "self" government is actually the government of other people.
Libertarians recognize that what you call "self" government is actually the government of other people.
Oh? Even when you agreed with what those "other people" voted for and had voted for along with them? What you said sounds like being libertarian is only important when you disagree with the majority.
SEDEVACANT. The Holy See is sedevacant. The White House is sedevacant. The Holy See is occupied by an anti-pope. The White House is occupied by a doddering fool.
Novus Ordo Watch .org. NovusOrdoWatch.org
Anyone else know what is Dodder, the plant also known as The Devil’s Guts?
It seems to me that hostility toward religion - at least, toward religious freedom - is more clearly evinced by governments granting religious exemptions from generally applicable, religiously neutral, secularly motivated laws and requirements. That represents discrimination, by the government, based on people's particular religious beliefs. It amounts to the government creating, in particular contexts, favored religious beliefs and disfavored religious beliefs.
Person 1: I don't want to get the mandated vaccine, I have a religious objection to it.
Gov't: Okay, you don't have to get it.
Person 2: I don't want to get it either.
Same Gov't: Do you have a religious objection to it?
Person 2: No.
Same Gov't: Tough shit. You don't have the right religious belief. You have to get it.
The (government) vaccine mandates are generally wrong. I think they're bad public policy. We should rally against them. But granting religious exemptions from them is adding another layer of wrong to the bad public policy.
As for Governor Hochul's comments, they seem to evince a naive and constrained view of personal religious belief. Maybe that's reasonably interpreted as hostility toward religion (though I still think less so than advocating for government discrimination based on personal religious beliefs). But I see those comments more as hostile toward people being disingenuous about their religious beliefs, not so much hostile toward sincerely held religious beliefs or religious belief in general. Maybe she's wrong (in her suggestion) about how prevalent disingenuity is in this context, but surely there is some such disingenuity.
Anyway, is it hostile to religion to suggest that people are using religion as a prop in this context? To the extent that you're suggesting that everyone (or most everyone) who raises religious objections to vaccines is just using religion as a prop, then probably yes. To the extent that you're just pointing out that some people are using religion as a prop in this context, then probably no. Then again, if I thought of religious belief as something to be used (properly) as a prop, I might answer yes regardless.
Are those who claim a religious right to engage in their abortion ritual entitled to an exemption from state mandated bans on abortion procedures? https://news.yahoo.com/satanic-temple-requests-texas-court-152600169.html
All I can speak to is Christianity, which makes up about 65% of this country. There are no objections to vaccines in the Christian religion. None whatsoever. So that should take care of that. And I’m pretty sure there are none in Judaism, Buddhism, or the Islamic faith. But others can speak more directly to those.
The argument against mandates for vaccines against COVID on religious grounds is more than dubious. It is based on a sort of "fruit of the poisonous tree" analogue. Vector vaccines are indeed based on cell lines derived from some embryos aborted sometime in the 1970s. (I wonder how many of the refuseniks have received other vaccines or drugs based on embryonic cells before without ever discovering their religious objections but that of course is no argument against their now strict religious position.) That is, the refuseniks may object on religious grounds to the Astra Zeneca or Johnson & Johnson vaccines.
The religious argument falls apart for the mRNA vaccines (BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna). They are not based on such embryonic cell lines. Nothing impedes those who object on religious grounds to receive mRNA vaccines.
End of argument.
Legal merits of the bogus "animus" doctrine aside, this woman exhibits a disturbingly advanced form of the mental and spiritual disease known as progressivism.
In recent years we have seen religious ritual and belief being infused into otherwise secular activity and subjects, into political ideology and the exercise of political power (see e.g. John McWhorter's explanation of antiracism and curious scenes of people bowing down and confessing privilege, confessions of carbon indulgence, etc). Broadly what is being forged is a common cultural epistemology of faith in (and worship of) the State and its institutions. The State's institutions include those that depend upon its benevolence, or increasingly all major institutions.
Blackman's OP didn't capture the half of Hochul's comments. She preached from a church pulpit, "I need you to be my apostles" for the vaccine. She wears a sign of her faith around her neck. "And I wear my 'vaccinated' necklace all the time to say I'm vaccinated."
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
Masterpiece: *Member of a tribunal compares respondent's religious beliefs to Nazism*
Hochul: *Governor calls unvaccinated people stupid to a reporter*
Josh: *Doesn't understand the difference between statements in a legal proceeding and extraneous statements by a politician*
Do you think this distinction makes a legal difference in terms of evidencing animus?
If a smart bigot makes sure to make only neutral statements during formal legal proceedings, and then unloads bigoted statements to the press about the very legislation or policy that was enacted, that a court should judge ignore that if a claim of animus is raised.
That kind of inquiry was foreclosed by Trump v. Hawaii.