D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
Freedom of Religion is a freedom that has many deep implications but is foundational to America and no disease trumps it. You can debate endlessly whether or not people should exercise their religious freedoms in that manner but ultimately it’s their decision alone.

The second part was obviously tongue in cheek but there are undoubtedly people and lawyers trying to figure out how to pull it off, I am not one of them.
The irony of religion in the covid era.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
Jan 6th. Very stupid what he said but there’s no rational reason Trump would actually want people’s to storm the White House. Courts will have to prove intent which is impossible unless someone has him on tape saying he is staging a coupe with hillbilly protesters. Fast forward that tape and Marines murder all of them in 30 minutes flat, Trump has most definitely had security briefings and is well aware of what type of response the military can mount to a takeover of the White House. Anyway on Jan 6 there was massive security monitoring inside the White House and high ranking military officials debating on whether or not to murder a bunch of Americans, something that ranks at the very bottom of their list of things to do that day.

Slow down and think through the things you’re suggesting and their implications. These delusions just simply don’t pass the smell test.
I
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
>>>As vaccination developments evolved, the law did, too. Britain was the first country to mandate vaccines in 1853, requiring babies to be inoculated against smallpox. Two years later, Massachusetts became the first state to use its police powers to require smallpox vaccinations. When, some 50 years later during a smallpox outbreak, the vaccination requirement was challenged, the U.S. Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) held that there is no constitutional right for every person to be free of every restraint; rather, all persons, as a condition of citizenry, could be subjected to some form of restraint for the public good. Accordingly, the country’s first objection to mandatory vaccination was defeated.

Almost two decades later, the Supreme Court in Zucht v. King (1922) upheld a Texas school exclusion law that denied school enrollment to unvaccinated children. And in 1944, the Supreme Court in Prince v. Massachusetts (1944) again made clear that the state’s interest in public safety takes priority over religious freedom and the right to family privacy. Thus, time and again, the use of a state’s police power to uphold public health has taken priority over the right to privacy or to religious freedom or to education. Accordingly, over the next several decades, because of the ease, speed, and deadly consequences of disease transmission in schools, every single state came to enact some form of mandatory vaccination requirement, along with a school exclusion sanction for unvaccinated children…

Religious exemptions. Most states also provide a religious exemption, though five currently do not: California, Maine, Mississippi, West Virginia, and now New York, which eliminated religious exemptions this year in response to a massive measles outbreak believed to have originated in religious communities in Brooklyn and other New York counties. Numerous other states are following suit by considering legislative reforms to end their own religious exemptions. <<<
Thanks for summarizing the legal opinions and precedents for establishing vaccine mandates.

Do you have comments about the ruling and outcome of the 1990-91 Philadelphia measles outbreak? (see link below) Is it consistent with those 1905, 1922 and 1944 Supreme Court rulings? The Philadelphia case never went beyond the local courts. Was that because of the three prior Supreme Court rulings?
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
I believe this was meant as opinion, not a statement of law. Nevertheless, the law is consistent with this view. States can carve out religious exemptions, but they are not required to do so under the U.S. Constitution.

There's an old adage to the effect that your right to swing your fists ends just where my nose begins. Or, more broadly, my liberty ends where yours begins.

>>>As vaccination developments evolved, the law did, too. Britain was the first country to mandate vaccines in 1853, requiring babies to be inoculated against smallpox. Two years later, Massachusetts became the first state to use its police powers to require smallpox vaccinations. When, some 50 years later during a smallpox outbreak, the vaccination requirement was challenged, the U.S. Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) held that there is no constitutional right for every person to be free of every restraint; rather, all persons, as a condition of citizenry, could be subjected to some form of restraint for the public good. Accordingly, the country’s first objection to mandatory vaccination was defeated.

Almost two decades later, the Supreme Court in Zucht v. King (1922) upheld a Texas school exclusion law that denied school enrollment to unvaccinated children. And in 1944, the Supreme Court in Prince v. Massachusetts (1944) again made clear that the state’s interest in public safety takes priority over religious freedom and the right to family privacy. Thus, time and again, the use of a state’s police power to uphold public health has taken priority over the right to privacy or to religious freedom or to education. Accordingly, over the next several decades, because of the ease, speed, and deadly consequences of disease transmission in schools, every single state came to enact some form of mandatory vaccination requirement, along with a school exclusion sanction for unvaccinated children. . . .

Religious exemptions. Most states also provide a religious exemption, though five currently do not: California, Maine, Mississippi, West Virginia, and now New York, which eliminated religious exemptions this year in response to a massive measles outbreak believed to have originated in religious communities in Brooklyn and other New York counties. Numerous other states are following suit by considering legislative reforms to end their own religious exemptions. <<<

Yes, it certainly was meant as an opinion that freedom of religion is not freedom to infect others with a deadly disease when there is a simple and safe (yes, safe) thing one can do to greatly reduce the risk to oneself and others: Get a vaccine. Just from a moral standpoint I find that kind of attitude I replied to indefensible, and they even have the gall to call themselves "good Christians". This from an atheist, btw.
 
Kvn_Walker

Kvn_Walker

Audioholic Field Marshall
There are some companies that will end up writing some very large checks to people.
Mark this post and get back with me. I'll paypal you $25 when the first "very large check" is awarded. It doesn't work that way in the real world. I could say that my religion gives me the right to walk around with my pecker out but I bet I still get fired and arrested for it.

I bet you think being banned from twitter is a First Amendment violation too?
 
T

TankTop5

Audioholic Field Marshall
I have no doubt Trump could get impeached again (after leaving office) but zero chance of the Senate convicting. Even if the Senate chooses to convict that is not a criminal conviction and carries no weight other than the removal from office which he no longer holds. This is just politics and simply giving anti Trumpers a bone to gnaw on They are simply being used by politicians and kept ravenous until there is another political target to unleash them on. No worries because that is also exactly what Trump is doing… Please be sure that you are not simply a pawn in someone else’s game.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Thanks for summarizing the legal opinions and precedents for establishing vaccine mandates.

Do you have comments about the ruling and outcome of the 1990-91 Philadelphia measles outbreak? (see link below) Is it consistent with those 1905, 1922 and 1944 Supreme Court rulings? The Philadelphia case never went beyond the local courts. Was that because of the three prior Supreme Court rulings?
I'm not entirely sure what the basis was for the judge's order in the Philly measles case. It appears to me that the order was never litigated so it's not something that would be cited in future cases as controlling authority. It's not clear to me if the basis for the order was to protect the children getting vaccinated, to protect others from the spread, or both.

As I see it, the Philly case does not conflict with the 3 Supreme Court decisions, but the Supreme Court cases are also not directly on point. The Philly case boiled down to whether or not the government's assertion of authority under the parens patriae doctrine trumped the parent's rights to exercise their religious beliefs with regards to their children.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/parens_patriae

Jacobson (1905) involved an adult who argued that it was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment to make him pay a fine for refusing to be vaccinated. Thus, religion and parens patriae were not involved. It's interesting that many of the arguments then are basically the same as now: "The defendant offered to prove that vaccination ‘quite often’ caused serious and permanent injury to the health of the person vaccinated; that the operation ‘occasionally’ resulted in death; that it was ‘impossible’ to tell ‘in any particular case’ what the results of vaccination would be, or whether it would injure the health or result in death; that ‘quite often’ one's blood is in a certain condition of impurity when it is not prudent or safe to vaccinate him . . . " The court was not impressed, and said this is a job for the legislature: "These offers, in effect, invited the court and jury to go over the whole ground gone over by the legislature when it enacted the statute in question. . . . We are unwilling to hold it to be an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the state."

Zucht (1922) involved a law saying children could not attend school unless they were vaccinated. The decision is very short, and the court dismissed the case as not raising a serious issue with regards to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Prince case (1944) involved a law that stated "No boy under twelve and no girl under eighteen shall sell, expose or offer for sale any newspapers, magazines . . . in any street or public place." The custodian/parent violated the law by having their children sell religious magazines. The sole issue was freedom of religion under the First Amendment. Basically, the court said that the government has a legitimate interest in the welfare of children that outweighed the belief of the parents.

The news reports concerning the Philly measles case say the doctors actually got 2 different court orders, the first allowed them to take sick children in for treatment, and the second was for forced vaccination: "They got a court order to force parents at Faith Tabernacle to have their children vaccinated. . . .'I recall we lined the children up and gave the immunizations, and many of the parents were actually weeping,' he says." I have not found copies of the court orders, so it's hard to know exactly what they said. The order allowing the doctors to take sick children in is not that surprising because it was a medical emergency. The Supreme Court cases I've seen do not address a law or court order requiring actual forced vaccinations over the objections of the parents.

In terms of what would happen if the Supreme Court were to take up a forced vaccination of children case, the truth is I do not know what the outcome would be. I suspect it would be very fact specific, and it would turn on the evidence presented that the children would suffer severe medical problems if not vaccinated. It would be extremely intrusive, and the entity seeking to enforce forced vaccination would need compelling evidence. Given that community spread can (at least in theory) be prevented with measures other than vaccination, I suspect that potential community spread of the virus would not be a major factor. Normally, the court is not inclined to uphold intrusive laws if there are less intrusive alternatives available.

On a side note, it's well established that adults have a right to refuse medical treatment. I highly doubt a judge would issue an order similar to first order in the Philly case (taking children in for treatment) in the case of adults.

That's a very long-winded way of saying I don't know.

Dang, swerd, you sure ask hard questions!
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
I have no doubt Trump could get impeached again (after leaving office) but zero chance of the Senate convicting. Even if the Senate chooses to convict that is not a criminal conviction and carries no weight other than the removal from office which he no longer holds. This is just politics and simply giving anti Trumpers a bone to gnaw on They are simply being used by politicians and kept ravenous until there is another political target to unleash them on. No worries because that is also exactly what Trump is doing… Please be sure that you are not simply a pawn in someone else’s game.
I would assume an investigation into the riot is the obvious answer. Regardless of if Trump had anything to do with it.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I feel like when places started putting "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs in front of their business people like this had a fit. Then they "boycotted" the businesses they aren't even allowed to enter.

It's like way back when I used to work retail and customers would say "I won't ever be coming back" and when I'd tell them "thank you" they got quite upset.
Or, when they 'threaten' to never return (it's a gift, really), I have replied with "Good!". This actually happened after I caught someone shoplifting.

Lots of good comebacks-

"Kiss my a$$!" can be countered with "I wouldn't know where to start" and "I'm leaving!" with "And, not a moment too soon".
 
T

TankTop5

Audioholic Field Marshall
Or, when they 'threaten' to never return (it's a gift, really), I have replied with "Good!". This actually happened after I caught someone shoplifting.

Lots of good comebacks-

"Kiss my a$$!" can be countered with "I wouldn't know where to start" and "I'm leaving!" with "And, not a moment too soon".
Manager at a car dealership responding to an angry customer, “so you’re threatening to leave in the POS you showed up in?”
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Yes, it certainly was meant as an opinion that freedom of religion is not freedom to infect others with a deadly disease when there is a simple and safe (yes, safe) thing one can do to greatly reduce the risk to oneself and others: Get a vaccine. Just from a moral standpoint I find that kind of attitude I replied to indefensible, and they even have the gall to call themselves "good Christians". This from an atheist, btw.
But it does grant the freedom to be as stupid as their god made them.

Just looking at it on paper, giving people free will is a really, really bad idea. Given the chance, someone, somewhere will do whatever the vast majority thinks is absolutely disgusting and not humanly possible/right/moral/conceivable but yet, we have a few thousand years of history to prove them wrong. How could anyone think that Eurropean settlers would decimate so many indigenous people, WWII could happen with 50-70 million dead because of it? How could they think that Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao and others would want to kill so many people and think it was OK to do that?

And then, there's the Roman Catholic church.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Manager at a car dealership responding to an angry customer, “so you’re threatening to leave in the POS you showed up in?”
When I worked at a stereo store, the specification race was raging among the manufacturers of consumer electronics. One day, a guy came in holding a copy of Consumer Reports and said "OK, impress me". One of my friends who worked there asked, "Why bother?".
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
The Mayo paper (not yet peer reviewed) showign the the Moderna vaccine is more effective than the Pfizer vaccine against the Delta variant has been getting some press. I'm wondering this difference will be confirmed by further studies. Perhaps a Moderna booster would help if one has already received the Pfizer vaccine?

>>>The Mayo Clinic study found that across multiple states, those inoculated with Pfizer were twice as likely to experience a breakthrough infection despite being vaccinated, as compared to Moderna. . . .

“In Florida, which is currently experiencing its largest COVID-19 surge to date, the risk of infection in July after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 (the Moderna shot) was about 60% lower than after full vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer),” the researchers said.

Still, both vaccines appeared to remain highly effective (over 90%) at preventing severe illness.<<<

 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Warlord
The Mayo paper (not yet peer reviewed) showign the the Moderna vaccine is more effective than the Pfizer vaccine against the Delta variant has been getting some press. I'm wondering this difference will be confirmed by further studies. Perhaps a Moderna booster would help if one has already received the Pfizer vaccine?

>>>The Mayo Clinic study found that across multiple states, those inoculated with Pfizer were twice as likely to experience a breakthrough infection despite being vaccinated, as compared to Moderna. . . .

“In Florida, which is currently experiencing its largest COVID-19 surge to date, the risk of infection in July after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 (the Moderna shot) was about 60% lower than after full vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer),” the researchers said.

Still, both vaccines appeared to remain highly effective (over 90%) at preventing severe illness.<<<

I read something along the lines of doing exactly that. A moderna booster for pfizer patients, the opposite for moderna patients. Seems they'll help each other? I need to see if I can find that article.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
The Mayo paper (not yet peer reviewed) showign the the Moderna vaccine is more effective than the Pfizer vaccine against the Delta variant has been getting some press. I'm wondering this difference will be confirmed by further studies. Perhaps a Moderna booster would help if one has already received the Pfizer vaccine?

>>>The Mayo Clinic study found that across multiple states, those inoculated with Pfizer were twice as likely to experience a breakthrough infection despite being vaccinated, as compared to Moderna. . . .

“In Florida, which is currently experiencing its largest COVID-19 surge to date, the risk of infection in July after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 (the Moderna shot) was about 60% lower than after full vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer),” the researchers said.

Still, both vaccines appeared to remain highly effective (over 90%) at preventing severe illness.<<<

They'll need to test this combination- the unintended interactions could be dangerous.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
In case it wasn't obvious. From a youtuber.....

Rand Paul is a practising politician. He has practiced ophthalmology. A medical specialty that means he has zero training or special authority in the fields of virology or epidemiology. Just because someone is a doctor (in this case, someone who has a lapsed certification and tried to self-certify, which is considered invalid by many hospitals and insurance companies) does not mean they are an expert in all things medical, nor are an expert with anything of value to say. I'm not saying he's not a good ophthalmologist. He might be the man to go to for some LASIK. I don't know. I'm just saying medical specialties are exactly that: highly specialized. He lacks the necessary education and experience in this particular case. And there may be some bias in his messaging because of his political position and desire to win reelection. As I said, right now he's a practising politician. That is his focus. BTW, I'm not sure how disagreeing with Paul's political game playing and misinformation that goes against the majority consensus of medical professionals in the relevant fields of expertise (he is literally going against what medical doctors say) necessarily makes someone a "leftist". Is there some rule that says people must walk in lock-step with any Party official instead of exercising their own will? What happened to freedom of thought?
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top