But, none of these pose an immediate danger to others by unvaccinated kids. You cannot be sure of a mutation and you cannot say with certainty that this religious exception from vaccinations will cause anybody else to get sick in each specific case. The problem with your argument is that not vaccinating poses no immediate danger to anyone else PLUS it eliminates a possible danger from the side effects of vaccinations (not that I would recommend skipping vaccinations, but you have to agree that there is SOME risk with them).

No we need to have the religious exception here.

The question was "Which religions prohibit vaccinations?" I'm pointing out that there ARE some that do, and with your admission at least ONE does. So the question about if this new law is a encroachment on religious freedom must be "Yes, Yes it is!"

Now shall we proceed to the question about if this encroachment is a valid one or not or do you wish to keep arguing that this has nothing to do with freedom of religion?

As you rightly point out, there are limits to religious freedoms (as there are to other rights), and failing to obtain immediate lifesaving medical treatment for your children is an example of such a limit. However, the question here is about vaccinations, which are NOT immediate medial care, nor is the child going to die if they don't get them. So the question is different from the blood transfusion or cancer treatments.

Two that I am aware of. Christian Science prohibits many common medical procedures and I believe that some Amish eschew all technology beyond horse and buggies. They are long standing established religions. But how long a religion has existed has nothing to do with this question. Remember that this CLEARLY is infringing on religious freedom, the question is about if this infringement is allowed by the constitution or not.

Religious freedom has limits, like freedom of speech has limits, so nobody is claiming that just because your religion says you can, you get to break the law. However, the question is about what can be made into a law, especially a law that clearly infringes on somebody's religious freedoms. Unless the government has a compelling reason it should not (and constitutionally cannot) infringe on any of the freedoms protected by the constitution. I don't believe that they have a compelling reason in this case.

And our founding fathers wrestled with just such questions.

Look, as with all freedoms, there are limits. Religion just cannot be a cart blanch to any behavior we wish. You cannot just say "My religion says I must do this, or not do that" to get around some law you don't like.

However, when writing laws we MUST be mindful of religious options of others and take care to not inadvertently infringe on someone's religious freedoms without a good reason. We cannot curb freedom of the press without good reason, we cannot curb speech without really good reasons. Religious freedom is the same thing, you cannot pass a law that infringes on someone's exercise of their religion without good reason.

So the debate here is if the lawmakers in California have a good reason to not include a religious exception in their law. IMHO they do not have a compelling reason and should have included the religious exception.

When 51% figure out that they can keep voting themselves resources by electing the right people, the end is near. Venezuela is an example of how this works. Once it was a thriving economic power house in south America, resource rich and hard working. Now, though the "reforms" of Chavez and his successor the country's economic engine has been running on sugared gasoline while the politicians poured fine sand in the crankcase and tried to floor the accelerator. Democracy voted itself out of existence as the popular "Let me make sure you get your share!" refrain echoed through the ever swelling ranks of the poor and dependent.

Revolution is at the door, because eventually the government and the politicians that run it won't be able to cash the checks they've written. And the people who voted out of greed, to get something now and a promise of more to come, and those who objected to the perversion of their government, will ALL pay along with their children, grand children and great grand children, many with their lives.

The sad part is that history clearly shows how this will progress, and even so, there are many countries on the same path...

Except that in this case the "Alarm" being raised is due to the output of some computer simulations that are trying to predict the future.... Simulations I might add which have been wildly wrong in the past, but they claim to have fixed now. Of course none of this "alarm" has anything to do with political and financial power either....

Riiight...

So in this case, the RATIONAL thing to do is to be a bit skeptical of all the alarmist rhetoric about things where there obviously is a potential for political and financial gains by the people making the claims.

Wow... Three parties of one... Hope they at least have video links between them...

Of course there is no evidence.... She literally erased EVERYTHING on the server. Oh sure, she had some e-mails printed, but the server, and the E-mail supposedly on it where erased before anybody had a chance to look. All we really have is her word that it never was hacked, not that she'd know if it was anyway.

I'm not confused...

There needs to be a really good reason to step on someone's religious liberty. In the two extremes you cite, the reason (or lack there of) is obvious. In THIS case, it's not so clear cut because we are between the extremes. When faced with a question like this, where you are in the grey, my principles say you error on the side of liberty.

Gee, miss the point much...

He was complaining that if he sends his kids to "PUBLIC SCHOOL" (which comes at no extra cost to him) he will be forced to violate his religious belief. Therefore, in order to practice his religion as he sees fit, he will be forced to private school his children, which comes at an EXTRA cost. So, the net effect of this law is to cause him to violate his religious practice OR pay money to the private school. It's the exact same effect as taxing his religious practice though force of law.

Nobody is complaining about the system of taxes that provide public schools, only that due to laws like this single out specific religious and force them to violate their religious views or incur extra costs. This situation should not be.

Putting others at risk is NOT a good argument here, especially when you have to revert to "A sickness could mutate and kill" hypothetical to make your point.

I think you are way overstating the risks to others by people who choose not to vaccinate. Where what you say is POSSIBLE, so is the mutation of the common cold or flu into a virulent strain that wipes out a huge percentage of the population. Actually, for those things we have working vaccines for, the risk seems much less.

Without a real demonstrated immediate danger, we must error on the side of freedom and allow religious exceptions to any mandatory vaccination laws. Or shall we just trample on the first amendment based on a hypothetical danger? My principles say that a religious exception should be in this law.

But they do have an obligation sir. And I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

They must not impede the free exercise of religion and to fulfill that requirement they must be VERY mindful of religious exercise or risk violating the terms of the constitution.

No, not being vaccinated only means you have a greater chance of catching something. Large communities in this country don't do any vaccinations, yet most of their children do not die. They are not in immediate danger by not being vaccinated.

Immediate danger means it is dangerous right now (or soon), not that some possible harm may come in the distant future. Refusing lifesaving medical treatment for a child that was in a car accident is causing immediate harm. Not making them wear a helmet when riding their bikes is an immediate danger of harm, these you can rightly regulate. Not vaccinating does not present any immediate danger to the child, and although the state can strongly encourage you to vaccinate if they want, there MUST be exceptions allowed for medical and religious reasons.

You did vaccinate YOUR kids right? Why are you worried? Even if they ran into a room full of sick unvaccinated kids for a day, chances are they will emerge perfectly safe. I don't see the problem.. That someone else doesn't vaccinate doesn't put you and yours at risk, assuming you have them vaccinated..

For principle, we must error on the side of freedom.

You do realize that your hypothetical is only about a very small percentage of the population right? That if YOU are vaccinated, you are most likely safe from those who are not?

There will ALWAYS be unvaccinated people out there. Vaccinate your children and you won't likely have to worry about them being infected by the unvaccinated out there. Oh, you are in the vanishingly small slice of folks with kids who cannot have the vaccines for medical reasons? OR you are in that small percentage for which vaccines don't actually work? In reality it is the people who choose not to vaccinate who are taking the risks, not you.