Looks like this controversial bill is going to be made law.
Thoughts?
Government overreach???
The particular bill is over reach when it forces kids in private schools to be vaccinated. That should be up to the owner of the private school.
Will people who decide to home school their children have their school(property) taxes refunded since their child is not attending a public school?
I had a real problem with this gem of a sentence from that article, “the bill faltered last week under questions about whether unvaccinated children could still exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN EDUCATION.” What in the hell?
Forced Injections.
Only in California.
If vaccinations were so effective in combating the flu and cold, why the hell are they being made mandatory??
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Looks like this controversial bill is going to be made law.
Thoughts?
Government overreach???
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article19227906.html[/quote]
I have plenty of problems with it, but I guess it makes more sense than the alternative(I.e., vaccinations being outlawed). At least it’s not yet federal law, so it is constitutional. “Everything which is not forbidden is compulsory.”-T.H. White
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Looks like this controversial bill is going to be made law.
Thoughts?
Government overreach???
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article19227906.html[/quote]
I have plenty of problems with it, but I guess it makes more sense than the alternative(I.e., vaccinations being outlawed). At least it’s not yet federal law, so it is constitutional. “Everything which is not forbidden is compulsory.”-T.H. White
[/quote]
Yeah, I have massive problems with it as much as I think the anti-vax people are crazy. NOBODY should be forced to be injected.
But yeah, probably constitutional since it’s state law rather than federal. Of course, I expect this to be challenged because of the terrible awful precedent it sets, but maybe I’m wrong and they’ll just take it lying down
And no religious exemptions.
Your religious freedom is subjugate to the almighty State!
Good grief
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
And no religious exemptions.
Your religious freedom is subjugate to the almighty State!
Good grief[/quote]
? Isn’t the 1st Amendment meant to mean that the State cannot establish a single religion as the state religion/official religion, and must respect the existence of all religions? However, that doesn’t meant that they must respect the doctrines of every religion, does it?
Otherwise we’d have to respect Islamic doctrine of not creating the image of Muhammad or God, because that apparently promotes idolatry of the wrong things.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
And no religious exemptions.
Your religious freedom is subjugate to the almighty State!
Good grief[/quote]
? Isn’t the 1st Amendment meant to mean that the State cannot establish a single religion as the state religion/official religion, and must respect the existence of all religions? However, that doesn’t meant that they must respect the doctrines of every religion, does it?
Otherwise we’d have to respect Islamic doctrine of not creating the image of Muhammad or God, because that apparently promotes idolatry of the wrong things.[/quote]
Well, yes. But anytime one of us uses that line from a conservative point of argument we get the opposite rebuttal from the other side of the aisle.
Besides which, religious objections have long been recognized legally as viable exceptions. That is, in fact, the traditional (if a law that has been present since 1992 can be called traditional) purpose of the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts passed first federally and then by various states. Notwithstanding the current debate about homosexuality and the RFRA which has coopted the framework of the debate, that’s one thing it was originally created for.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Well, yes. But anytime one of us uses that line from a conservative point of argument we get the opposite rebuttal from the other side of the aisle.[/quote]
The SJW people care nothing about good reasoning or maintaining actual principle in their beliefs.
I am willing to admire Christians who maintain principle. I do not agree with many of their beliefs. I certainly do not agree with the pastor at the church I go to nowadays when he talked about the sins of homosexuality.
But I am fine with the approach he’s coming from. He disagrees with homosexuality, not because it’s vile to him or anything, but simply because it is sinful to God. Say what you want about Christians and how it may seem dumb to get their opinions from a book or w.e., but at least he maintains a principle and (hopefully) the man sticks to it in his private life as well.
SJW people don’t give a shit about principle. Nor do they give a shit about good reasoning.
So, ya… fuck the SJW people and how they respond to arguments. (If you’re referring to some other people besides SJW people, lemme know and I’ll go off on how they’re wrong too =P )
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Besides which, religious objections have long been recognized legally as viable exceptions. That is, in fact, the traditional (if a law that has been present since 1992 can be called traditional) purpose of the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts passed first federally and then by various states. Notwithstanding the current debate about homosexuality and the RFRA which has coopted the framework of the debate, that’s one thing it was originally created for.
[/quote]
I understand, and I think it’s wrong as far as the Constitution is concerned.
I think the RFRA is written by a bunch of Christians who don’t like having to realize the fact that their religion, and most others for that matter, don’t really work well with the Constitution.
I grew up in the era of the tail-end of polio, which was a real threat to kids as well as adults. I was probably vaccinated in 1960 at a local school who did them in-mass on weekends. I had an older cousin with polio, I recall her walking with those leg braces. I also went to school with too many kids with thalidomide birth defects (nothing to do with vaccinations), so when it was time for my kids to get vaccinations, I was all for it.
Every school enrollment through college wanted to see those records, also Cub and Boy Scouts. The US and scores of other countries, many diseases are eradicated through compliance with vaccinations, seems like it makes sense to me, but some people will sacrifice the health of their children, just to make their pointless point.
Just shut up and vaccinate your kids.
Measle outbreaks? This diseases are preventable. When you don’t vaccinate your kids. You lower the immunity of the entire population. There are people who can’t be vaccinated or protected. Herd immunity is important for our society. Vaccinate your kids stop the madness.
[quote]Ryancoburn wrote:
Measle outbreaks? This diseases are preventable. When you don’t vaccinate your kids. You lower the immunity of the entire population. There are people who can’t be vaccinated or protected. Herd immunity is important for our society. Vaccinate your kids stop the madness.[/quote]
It was never a thought of NOT vaccinating my kids. Some of the parenting in this country is very questionable!
[quote]I grew up in the era of the tail-end of polio, which was a real threat to kids as well as adults. I was probably vaccinated in 1960 at a local school who did them in-mass on weekends. I had an older cousin with polio, I recall her walking with those leg braces. I also went to school with too many kids with thalidomide birth defects (nothing to do with vaccinations), so when it was time for my kids to get vaccinations, I was all for it.
Every school enrollment through college wanted to see those records, also Cub and Boy Scouts. The US and scores of other countries, many diseases are eradicated through compliance with vaccinations, seems like it makes sense to me, but some people will sacrifice the health of their children, just to make their pointless point.[/quote]
I completely agree with all three of you guys. Problem is though, this is something I don’t know I like the government mandating. Now I do agree that this is the State government, and they have latitude to legislate things that the fed does not, Constitutionally speaking.
I’m not sure I like this bill, but I’m not sure I hate it either–excepting as far as mandating what private schools do. That should be their decision: that is, after all, why they are PRIVATE schools.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Well, yes. But anytime one of us uses that line from a conservative point of argument we get the opposite rebuttal from the other side of the aisle.[/quote]
The SJW people care nothing about good reasoning or maintaining actual principle in their beliefs.
I am willing to admire Christians who maintain principle. I do not agree with many of their beliefs. I certainly do not agree with the pastor at the church I go to nowadays when he talked about the sins of homosexuality.
But I am fine with the approach he’s coming from. He disagrees with homosexuality, not because it’s vile to him or anything, but simply because it is sinful to God. Say what you want about Christians and how it may seem dumb to get their opinions from a book or w.e., but at least he maintains a principle and (hopefully) the man sticks to it in his private life as well.
SJW people don’t give a shit about principle. Nor do they give a shit about good reasoning.
So, ya… fuck the SJW people and how they respond to arguments. (If you’re referring to some other people besides SJW people, lemme know and I’ll go off on how they’re wrong too =P )[/quote]
Hahaha. Fair play. I wasn’t sure what angle you were coming from, and also I was severely sleep deprived when I was responding. I agree with you. And I also think that your position about the pastor of the church you are currently attending, and a lot of CHrisians like that, is right on as well: Consistency is important and it is important to maintain principle. And it’s nice that you can see that even while you disagree intensely, instead of just calling him a homophobe :). We all have inconsistencies in our views; it’s not so much that we are perfectly harmonious as that we are looking for the insconsistencies and a way to reconcile them or change our viewpoint. That’s what matters.
[quote][quote]Aragorn wrote:
Besides which, religious objections have long been recognized legally as viable exceptions. That is, in fact, the traditional (if a law that has been present since 1992 can be called traditional) purpose of the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts passed first federally and then by various states. Notwithstanding the current debate about homosexuality and the RFRA which has coopted the framework of the debate, that’s one thing it was originally created for.
[/quote]
I understand, and I think it’s wrong as far as the Constitution is concerned.
I think the RFRA is written by a bunch of Christians who don’t like having to realize the fact that their religion, and most others for that matter, don’t really work well with the Constitution.[/quote]
This is where you lose me.
I’m not sure what you mean by “I think it’s wrong as far as the Constitution is concerned”. You don’t think religious objections are Constitutionally viable? There’s a two century long legal precedent against you on that… or is it something else you were referring to?
The original federal RFRA was in response to a number of judicial decisions regarding native american tribes: a land grab that went across sacred land, and unemployement linked to peyote test used in religious ritual.
Incidentally the RFRA was co-introduced by none other than Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy (in the separate Houses). Not exactly your fundamentalist Christians.
In fact, this is pretty much similar to the state scene: there are 20 state RFRA laws dating back to 1998, most of them not about homosexuality and not introduced by the “crazed fundamentalist” crowd. We have yet to hear anything about the mass deaths and deprivations that the LBGT SJWs are wailing will happen. The bill serves legitimate functions in our current legal framework. Most all the people protected by this bill in court cases were not Christian.
Anyway, end hijack. I don’t want this thread to derail and turn into yet another monstrosity on gay marriage–but I’d like to hear your answer on the first part of what I asked above.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
We all have inconsistencies in our views; it’s not so much that we are perfectly harmonious as that we are looking for the insconsistencies and a way to reconcile them or change our viewpoint. That’s what matters.[/quote]
This is how I see it for the most part as well.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
This is where you lose me.
I’m not sure what you mean by “I think it’s wrong as far as the Constitution is concerned”. You don’t think religious objections are Constitutionally viable? There’s a two century long legal precedent against you on that… or is it something else you were referring to?[/quote]
I do think religious objection is viable. I do not think it’s quite on the level that people take it nowadays (I think largely because the Founders couldn’t have ever imagined the level of heterogeneity around these days and didn’t plan for it). At least, I think it’s quite vague what the Constitution says.
But I’m no Constitutional lawyer =P
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The original federal RFRA was in response to a number of judicial decisions regarding native american tribes: a land grab that went across sacred land, and unemployement linked to peyote test used in religious ritual.
Incidentally the RFRA was co-introduced by none other than Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy (in the separate Houses). Not exactly your fundamentalist Christians.
[/quote]
That was just me taking an unwarranted swipe at the people who supported it. I can’t imagine all of those who voted did so because of conflict between Native American religious beliefs and the government. They must have seen how potentially beneficial this would have been for Christians as well.
Ok cool, that’s fair. To be frank, I don’t think in 1993 that the LBGT front was a large “threat” to fundamentalist politics but I follow now.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Looks like this controversial bill is going to be made law.
Thoughts?
Government overreach???
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article19227906.html[/quote]
I have plenty of problems with it, but I guess it makes more sense than the alternative(I.e., vaccinations being outlawed). At least it’s not yet federal law, so it is constitutional. “Everything which is not forbidden is compulsory.”-T.H. White
[/quote]
Yeah, I have massive problems with it as much as I think the anti-vax people are crazy. NOBODY should be forced to be injected.
But yeah, probably constitutional since it’s state law rather than federal. Of course, I expect this to be challenged because of the terrible awful precedent it sets, but maybe I’m wrong and they’ll just take it lying down[/quote]
Pretty much this. As much as I am in favor of vaccination I don’t like the idea of the government forcing people to do it. As usual it’s one of those why stop there type of things? Why not have the government force you to make your child exercise an hour a day? Force you to feed them government approved foods and beverages at home? Etc.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Ok cool, that’s fair. To be frank, I don’t think in 1993 that the LBGT front was a large “threat” to fundamentalist politics but I follow now.[/quote]
They certainly weren’t, but many Christians certainly felt that their beliefs and traditional power-hold were being threatened by big government since the early 1980s. Hence the rise of the fundamentalist Christians as a viable and potent political force in state government and, to a lesser extent, in national government.
As a staunch supporter of LIFE, my children will never be vaccinated with aborted babies from before I was born.
Its been to many years to remember all the vaccinations but I believe my kids do not have hepatitis b and some others. But they problems I had were with the viral shots.
Doctors justify using dead babies because the fetuses were “willingly aborted.” Idiots, they never asked the slaughtered children for their opinion.