![]() It aligns very closely with the way courts have assessed religious belief and sincerity. The judge was unpersuaded about the sincerity of that belief when the woman said she relied on a specific biblical verse, and then was unclear on what the verse said.įor the federal workforce, a group of managers from various agencies developed a questionnaire for federal employees seeking a religious exemption. She said that she believed that "people are made in the image of God and it therefore dishonors God to cover our faces." A federal court in Pennsylvania ruled against a woman who argued that a mask mandate at her child’s school violated her interpretation of the Bible. "It's relevant if the person has never refused vaccines in the past," said Michelle Mello, a law professor at Stanford University.Ī history of opposing mask mandates might also weigh against a claim based on religion. That, the court said, was a medical, not religious, belief.Ĭourts might judge present religious sincerity based on past behavior. The court said the employee had given inconsistent reasons, at one point having said that she thought the vaccine would do more harm than good. ![]() In terms of religion, the court wrote that it was looking for beliefs that "address fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters," and "are comprehensive in nature." She was fired and then she sued, saying she had been discriminated against for her religion. Wiley pointed to a 2020 case when an employee at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia refused to get a flu vaccine. "The standard is the sincerity of the personal belief, not whether you're part of an organized religion that prohibits vaccines," said University of California Hastings Law School professor Dorit Rubenstein Reiss. Instead, the courts focus on the individual. ![]() That would include judging whether a religion held a formal status. The Constitution bars the government from getting involved in the establishment of any religion. But formal doctrine doesn’t drive American law. The Vanderbilt survey named 24 religions in this group.Īs a counting exercise, Fauci’s statement holds up. Protestant faiths, Islam, Roman and Orthodox Catholicism, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and more have no prohibition against vaccination. "Church members are free to make their own choices on all life-decisions, in obedience to the law, including whether or not to vaccinate," the statement said. It said that "for more than a century, our denomination has counseled respect for public health authorities and conscientious obedience to the laws of the land, including those requiring vaccination."Ĭhurch leaders impose no decision on church members, but they encourage them to recognize the seriousness of public health concerns. While many Christian Scientists rely on prayer for healing, the Christian Science Church offered guidance to its members on vaccines in early 2019. Many people might instantly think of Christian Scientists. The Vanderbilt list is largely a topline overview, not a comprehensive study of all religions worldwide. There are five, a group that includes the Dutch Reformed Church, Church of the First Born, Faith Assembly and Endtime Ministries. Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s review of immunization and religions identified a small subset of Christian faiths that oppose vaccination on theological grounds. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |