Beyond "Religious Exemption"

[WhyCzar]

I’ve been pondering the differences between Religious Exemptions and Conscientious Objections.

In law and public policy, both concepts exist to protect individuals from being forced by the state or an institution to act against their deepest convictions.

Religious Exemptions are grounded in specific faith traditions, sacred texts, or recognized religious framework.

Conscientious Objections are just as deeply held moral, ethical convictions - whether religious or not.

If the underlying moral goal of granting an exemption is to prevent a person from violating their core conscience, why does the source of the conviction matter?

If a religious convert is granted relief from a mandate due to their faith, but a non-religious person is forced to comply despite having an equally deep, sincere moral objection based on secular ethics or human dignity, doesn't that privilege a religious framework over general human conscience?

Why not unify all exemption requests under one standard of Freedom of Conscience?

 

[chansen]

There should be no difference. A religious exemption is a conscientious objection with an imaginary third party in between.

The problem is you want a stupidity exception, which has nothing to do with religion or conscience. You want to say public health isn't important if you're too stupid to understand the underlying reasons and have instead latched onto disinformation because Facebook.

So you're not contemplating these things from a "Why is conscience weighed as less than a religious conviction?" standpoint. Because you're right - it shouldn't be.

You're trying to figure out how to elevate the value of elective ignorance. This is your cause.

And maybe we should. Maybe we should find a way to allow the wilfully ignorant to ignore any public safety policy they don't like. Speed limits? Not necessary. Food safety? I drink colloidal silver. Electrical standards? I've been shocked and I'm still alive.

Once we agree some people are exempt from all these things on ignorance grounds, the next thing we do is find a big, quiet island and convince them that boats aren't real.

 

[Mendalla]

Religion is just one special case of a conscientious objection. In fact, most past conscientious objectors have been on religious grounds (e.g. Amish, Mennonites, Quakers refusing to serve in the military, or at least in combat roles). So there is actually no real difference philosophically. It should not be treated differently, but our history and culture have kind of created the attitude that religion is a more valid ground for conscientious objections than others and sometimes allows conscientious objections where they might otherwise not be allowed (e.g. churches and clergy exempted from providing same sex marriage on ground of freedom of conscience). Personally, as a secular pacifist, my refusal to support a war or serve in the military (leaving aside the fact that I'm now too old to be drafted) should be as valid as a person holding to religious pacifism. And my right to perform a same sex wedding (were I a licensed officiant of some form) should be as valid as the right of an evangelical clergyperson to refuse to do so.

 

[Luce NDs]

I’ve been pondering the differences between Religious Exemptions and Conscientious Objections.

In law and public policy, both concepts exist to protect individuals from being forced by the state or an institution to act against their deepest convictions.

Religious Exemptions are grounded in specific faith traditions, sacred texts, or recognized religious framework.

Conscientious Objections are just as deeply held moral, ethical convictions - whether religious or not.

If the underlying moral goal of granting an exemption is to prevent a person from violating their core conscience, why does the source of the conviction matter?

If a religious convert is granted relief from a mandate due to their faith, but a non-religious person is forced to comply despite having an equally deep, sincere moral objection based on secular ethics or human dignity, doesn't that privilege a religious framework over general human conscience?

Why not unify all exemption requests under one standard of Freedom of Conscience?

I've suggested that before ... alas afterword someone responded emotionally and beat the crap out of a person supported on a rack of sorts ... so no after woods use prescient behavior with the forward ... but spell it different so it cannot be used in a train of evidence ...

Sometimes the accused was just fastened to a wall ... usually with chains ... to give the attachment weight ... sometimes even connected to Marie De Veau (sacred puddle of water). A lot of symbols were used to cover up for spooks of clarity! Consider that character in the fountain room in One Flew Over! It was a dark watery end given the lobotomy received ... abstract?

It is best to know the story behind what's told ... thus extenuating interpretations from beyond us.

 

[Luce NDs]

There should be no difference. A religious exemption is a conscientious objection with an imaginary third party in between.

The problem is you want a stupidity exception, which has nothing to do with religion or conscience. You want to say public health isn't important if you're too stupid to understand the underlying reasons and have instead latched onto disinformation because Facebook.

So you're not contemplating these things from a "Why is conscience weighed as less than a religious conviction?" standpoint. Because you're right - it shouldn't be.

You're trying to figure out how to elevate the value of elective ignorance. This is your cause.

And maybe we should. Maybe we should find a way to allow the wilfully ignorant to ignore any public safety policy they don't like. Speed limits? Not necessary. Food safety? I drink colloidal silver. Electrical standards? I've been shocked and I'm still alive.

Once we agree some people are exempt from all these things on ignorance grounds, the next thing we do is find a big, quiet island and convince them that boats aren't real.

Imaginary second person as the shadow in between and not out there?

Wasn't Australia like that ... with salt water crocks that could eat boats? The abstract is a useful conscience when conditioned ... that it can blow by anything powerful ...

 

[WhyCzar]

My No (or my Yes) should not require legal interpretation based on my creed, cultural background or gender as far as I am concerned.

 

[Luce NDs]

My No (or my Yes) should not require legal interpretation based on my creed, cultural background or gender as far as I am concerned.

Could the legally religious hysteria cause some anxiety for the person in your medium ... the thin media? Where core values are buried ...

Perhaps like a plucked thread causing a hummer ... wail in the valley?

 

[BetteTheRed]

My No (or my Yes) should not require legal interpretation based on my creed, cultural background or gender as far as I am concerned.

Agreed, but some would consider IQ and/or age as a legit criteria for exemption. It would be immoral not to vaccinate a developmentally challenged person; also, I would argue, a child. Neither are capable of informed consent, but the consequences of non-vaccination are judged by most reasonable people as worse than subverting informed consent. I don't want other people' children dying of meningitis (an uncommon but almost always fatal side effect of a measles infection), because I was too ignorant to vaccinate my child.

chansen, like the island idea. If you really wanted to reduce the worldwide incidence of willful ignorance, you could distribute some small-pox-infected blankets on said island.

 

[Luce NDs]

Agreed, but some would consider IQ and/or age as a legit criteria for exemption. It would be immoral not to vaccinate a developmentally challenged person; also, I would argue, a child. Neither are capable of informed consent, but the consequences of non-vaccination are judged by most reasonable people as worse than subverting informed consent. I don't want other people' children dying of meningitis (an uncommon but almost always fatal side effect of a measles infection), because I was too ignorant to vaccinate my child.

chansen, like the island idea. If you really wanted to reduce the worldwide incidence of willful ignorance, you could distribute some small-pox-infected blankets on said island.

The difficulty with some folk are the coatings of pocks and other marks! Some sheep with Black Spots ...

 

[chansen]

chansen, like the island idea. If you really wanted to reduce the worldwide incidence of willful ignorance, you could distribute some small-pox-infected blankets on said island.

Unnecessary. Something will reach them, and we'll have to trust that their diet will save them.

I used to walk around rural areas where pioneers buried their family members in small plots. If you do that, the ages jump out at you. It sucks.

 

[WhyCzar]

Neither are capable of informed consent,

Who holds the final say then?

 

[Luce NDs]

Who holds the final say then?

It is left with the paradigm which is sacrosanct because of how the powers conditioned it as ... in the case of Thor's Hammer ... bought on a dark cloud!

Few see through anything that presents as diabolical as Erasmus ... observing both ways! As a viper tasting with both sides of the tongue ... we cannot dispense with such icons ...

The conscience that has not ah WOKE ... well you know, how it is, if you're there!