Religious Grounds and Freedom

Submitted by Mark D (United States), Mar 7, 2014 at 13:40

(2) It's hard to see how this requirement to get protection against flu is a civil right violation, but maybe that's just me. (4 February, 2014)

You know what, she can refuse getting a flu shot on religious grounds. If she didn't want a flu shot, she must not have a flu shot. It is a civil right violation.

That Dr. Pipes, has been the reasoning that persistent Christians use too in various areas. "Religious grounds" and "Religious freedom" lies at the heart of it, serving as a legal basis, the mainstay. And lawyers fighting it has a laborious task with varying degrees of success. Such thing is riddled with legal challenges that oftentimes lead to striking a delicate balance between religious freedom and religious infringement. I told you, our leaders, left or right, by and large expresses respect for religion. We are taught that. America is kind on religion. So that is the case.

The Affordable Care Act, for example, complicated efforts. Some religious groups claim they should be exempt from the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds, such as consideration for abortion, providing credits for birth control pills is, condom sues, religious family based issues, etc., etc.

You know me, I say religion has no business in hospitals and the law, but lawyers fighting for it lose in some facets of life. We do make decisions based on religion. We accommodate religion. We take that into consideration. We confer the right.

For the hospital, if there is a safety issue, she must take the flu shot. Religious grounds must be dismissed.

For the Affordable Care Act, the health and well being of an individual should be the paramount concern so it should have trumped the attempt for exemption or tweaks on religious grounds, but the lawyers against religious infringement failed to upend. (And I must say thanks to the religious right.) and Obama found himself in a difficult spot so he acquiesced.

Any comments? Where do you stand?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".