• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reason Trumps Religion

Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
.

"Kentucky Anti-Vax Student Who Was Barred from School Loses Lawsuit


An anti-vaxxer high school student has lost his lawsuit against the Northern Kentucky Health Department, which banned him and other unvaccinated kids from attending school and extracurricular events.

We covered this case in March, when 18-year-old Jerome Kunkel first filed his lawsuit. He was banned from school and basketball in response to outbreaks of chickenpox, which is thought to be harmless but can actually kill some children. (Governor Matt Bevin later said he exposed his kids to chickenpox himself, something experts consider a horrible idea.)
Actually, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. The health and well being of others comes before any religious dictates.
Specifically, Kunkel had argued that all vaccines are against his religious beliefs and that banning him based on that would amount to faith-based discrimination. Thankfully, a judge saw through that nonsense argument.

The health department released the following statement in reaction to the ruling:

“Today the Boone Circuit Court issued a decision upholding the Northern Kentucky District Health Department’s statutory charge to protect the health and welfare of the community. We are pleased with the Court’s careful and thorough review of the evidence and legal issues posed in this case. The Court’s ruling, which follows on the heels of the Northern Kentucky Health Department receiving national recognition through re-accreditation by the Public Health Accreditation Board, underscores the critical need for Public Health Departments to preserve the safety of the entire community, and in particular the safety of those members of our community who are most susceptible to the dire consequences when a serious, infectious disease such as varicella, is left unabated and uncontrolled.”
​
An outbreak of 32 cases of the chicken pox at Our Lady of the Sacred Heart and Assumption Academy prompted the health department to ban all students without proof of immunity from the school for 21 days."
source

​
Which in a sense is faith-based discrimination.

What do you think.

.
 
Last edited:
PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
... Or rather practicality trumped ideology. Sometimes that's a good thing, and sometimes it's not. This time I think it was a good thing.
 
Brickjectivity

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
Skwim said:
Which in a sense is faith-based discrimination.

What do you think.
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as a clockwork legal system. The courts are there to handle this kind of edge case where a decision must be made. If at some future point the precedent becomes a problem it can be overturned.
 
McBell

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Skwim said:
​
Which in a sense is faith-based discrimination.

What do you think.

.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
It is not faith based discrimination.
At least it is isn't if by "faith based" you mean based on religion.
The decision has nothing to do with their religion, it has to do with health and well being.
That it is mostly those of "faith" (allegedly) it effects does not make it faith based.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Religion is fine as long as it's doctrines aren't harmful. Doctrines suitable for tribal pastoralists may be dysfunctional in a multicultural society. The same may be said of "freedom."
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
Altfish said:
Not faith based discrimination - stupidity based discrimination
Click to expand...

Mestemia said:
I disagree.
It is not faith based discrimination.
At least it is isn't if by "faith based" you mean based on religion.
The decision has nothing to do with their religion, it has to do with health and well being.
That it is mostly those of "faith" (allegedly) it effects does not make it faith based.
Click to expand...

But the only reason the issue came up is because of what his religion says.

"Kunkel had argued that all vaccines are against his religious beliefs"​

If it didn't say what it does Kunkel would have no reason to reject the vaccination. So his religious faith is a huge player in the issue. In effect, the court is saying, "Your belief be damned, we'll decide how important your faith is, and we've decided this particular part of it ain't important at all, and this is what you gotta do if you want to go to our schools." This is religious discrimination because it takes a particular religious belief and says it doesn't count---"We don't care what your religion says. When it comes up against what we want, we, the government, win. We will punish you for what you believe and do with that belief."

.
 
IndigoChild5559

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
First of all, the safety of the community DOES trump religion. It has nothing to do with reason trumping religion. There are many cases where the opposite happens.

Secondly, this has nothing to do with his religion, regardless of what the young man claims. Kunkel is a Catholic, and the Catholic church is not anti-vaccination, including the chicken pox vaccination (which was developed from the stem lines of two aborted fetuses back in the 1960's). These were Kunkel's private views.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Skwim said:
.

"Kentucky Anti-Vax Student Who Was Barred from School Loses Lawsuit


An anti-vaxxer high school student has lost his lawsuit against the Northern Kentucky Health Department, which banned him and other unvaccinated kids from attending school and extracurricular events.

We covered this case in March, when 18-year-old Jerome Kunkel first filed his lawsuit. He was banned from school and basketball in response to outbreaks of chickenpox, which is thought to be harmless but can actually kill some children. (Governor Matt Bevin later said he exposed his kids to chickenpox himself, something experts consider a horrible idea.)
Actually, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. The health and well being of others comes before any religious dictates.
Specifically, Kunkel had argued that all vaccines are against his religious beliefs and that banning him based on that would amount to faith-based discrimination. Thankfully, a judge saw through that nonsense argument.

The health department released the following statement in reaction to the ruling:

“Today the Boone Circuit Court issued a decision upholding the Northern Kentucky District Health Department’s statutory charge to protect the health and welfare of the community. We are pleased with the Court’s careful and thorough review of the evidence and legal issues posed in this case. The Court’s ruling, which follows on the heels of the Northern Kentucky Health Department receiving national recognition through re-accreditation by the Public Health Accreditation Board, underscores the critical need for Public Health Departments to preserve the safety of the entire community, and in particular the safety of those members of our community who are most susceptible to the dire consequences when a serious, infectious disease such as varicella, is left unabated and uncontrolled.”
​
An outbreak of 32 cases of the chicken pox at Our Lady of the Sacred Heart and Assumption Academy prompted the health department to ban all students without proof of immunity from the school for 21 days."
source
​
Which in a sense is faith-based discrimination.

What do you think.

.
Click to expand...

I agree with the court. More so public school is a service which one can opt out of.
 
1

1213

Well-Known Member
Skwim said:
Which in a sense is faith-based discrimination.​

What do you think.

.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is not discrimination because of faith. But I think it is wrong what they did. Those people who fear and want vaccines, should have them, but nobody should be forced to take them. After all, those who fear, are "protected" by the vaccines and the one who doesn’t, takes responsibility, if he gets sick because of not having vaccines. I think it is really sad, if USA also becomes/is totalitarian fascistic state.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
1213 said:
Those people who fear and want vaccines, should have them, but nobody should be forced to take them. After all, those who fear, are "protected" by the vaccines and the one who doesn’t, takes responsibility, if he gets sick because of not having vaccines.
Click to expand...
Good point.

.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Skwim said:
But the only reason the issue came up is because of what his religion says.
"Kunkel had argued that all vaccines are against his religious beliefs"​

If it didn't say what it does Kunkel would have no reason to reject the vaccination. So his religious faith is a huge player in the issue. In effect, the court is saying, "Your belief be damned, we'll decide how important your faith is, and we've decided this particular part of it ain't important at all, and this is what you gotta do if you want to go to our schools." This is religious discrimination because it takes a particular religious belief and says it doesn't count---"We don't care what your religion says. When it comes up against what we want, we, the government, win. We will punish you for what you believe and do with that belief."

.
Click to expand...
No, you’re wrong. Religious beliefs cannot trump the law. The law isn’t passed in order to squelch religion, but to promote public health and the health of individual citizens.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
sojourner said:
No, you’re wrong. Religious beliefs cannot trump the law. The law isn’t passed in order to squelch religion, but to promote public health and the health of individual citizens.
Click to expand...
Well, before the establishment of the law, which the court created by its ruling against Kunkel, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Kentucky Department for Public Health permitted a parent or guardian to declination required Immunizations on religious grounds. See HERE.

,
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Skwim said:
Well, before the establishment of the law, which the court created by its ruling against Kunkel, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Kentucky Department for Public Health permitted a parent or guardian to declination required Immunizations on religious grounds. See HERE.

,
Click to expand...
Before a law is established, of course, all bets are off.
 
McBell

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Skwim said:
But the only reason the issue came up is because of what his religion says.
"Kunkel had argued that all vaccines are against his religious beliefs"​

If it didn't say what it does Kunkel would have no reason to reject the vaccination. So his religious faith is a huge player in the issue. In effect, the court is saying, "Your belief be damned, we'll decide how important your faith is, and we've decided this particular part of it ain't important at all, and this is what you gotta do if you want to go to our schools." This is religious discrimination because it takes a particular religious belief and says it doesn't count---"We don't care what your religion says. When it comes up against what we want, we, the government, win. We will punish you for what you believe and do with that belief."

.
Click to expand...
He will have a difficult time proving that anyone involved in making said decision did so with the sole intent of violating his freedom.
Hells bells, he will be hard pressed to show that his religion had anything to do with the decision what-so-ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top