There is a simple solution to this, and it’s called “homeschooling”. I especially enjoy the internal contradiction of this:

A New York couple is suing a Catholic high school for refusing to grant a religious exemption that would allow their 14-year-old son to enroll in ninth grade without state-required vaccinations, claiming immunizations are a “violation of God’s supreme authority.”

They claim their son . . .should be granted an exemption to public health laws that require children to be inoculated for diseases including mumps, measles, rubella, hepatitis B and others.

“[W]e are all created in God’s image,” reads a letter the Polydors sent to the school on Feb. 13, according to the lawsuit. “Therefore, we must not defile our blood and our bodies with diseases and other impure substances. As the divine Architect, God designed our bodies to have immune systems that must not be defiled by vaccines. Immunizations are a violation of God’s supreme authority, and therefore, unholy. Since immunizations are unholy they violate my religious beliefs.”

The Polydors also claim that using vaccines would show a “lack of faith in God, and His perfectly designed immune system,” according to the lawsuit.

Okay…so…God created a perfect immune system for mankind. And that’s why nobody ever gets sick. Oh wait, is that only supposed to apply to people whose faith is strong enough? Or does it only apply to people who never “defile” their bodies from the time they’re born?

If the latter, it’s not very perfect, is it?

I’m used to reading about parents’ whaargarbl about their snowflakes being entitled to an education in a public school regardless of whatever ridiculous exceptions and special cases they insist upon. But for this whaargarbl to extend to a private school is a whole new level of entitlement. “I DEMAND THAT YOU TAKE MY MONEY AND MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO YOUR RULES”.

What the hell, guys? Find another school. That’s unlikely, however, given that God’s perfect immune system seems vulnerable to measles, mumps, rubella, polio, diphtheria, hepatatis B, and a variety of other dangerous illnesses.

Schools are ideal transmission vectors for diseases like this. For a school to not require immunizations is an invitation to epidemic among its students. It’s precisely because of the vaccine hysteria that diseases like measles are being seen again in outbreak clusters.

I don’t even want to talk about the “autism is caused by vaccines” issue. It’s stupid and doesn’t have a shred of evidence to support it.

This situation highlights the problem with the whole “religious exemptions” concept in our society. These people are just making up something that they want a religious exemption for. Is that the same thing as Muslim Sikhs who want to wear a kirpan (which, regardless of its symbolism, is a knife) to school or work? Is it the same thing as Catholics insisting on having Christmas Day off because it’s a high holy day for them?

I would argue that it is the same thing. Businesses and schools have rules. If you don’t like the rules, you should be free to find another business or school (yeah I know, the public education thing is another conversation entirely). Now personally I happen to think people should be allowed to carry daggers, even if they’re not Sikhs. Want Christmas Day off? File for vacation time.

But if you’re not willing to abide by the rules of a place, then that place should have the right to exclude you. Yes, I’m including things like disabilities, too (in some cases it’s a dick move but that’s part and parcel with private property rights and freedom of association). Courts should not even entertain a case like the Polydors’, because it should be an open-and-shut example of “private owner gets to make the rules on use of their own property”.

6 Responses to “God's Perfect Immune System”
  1. Sigivald says:

    I think the idea is that the design is “perfect” in the sense that it’s what God intended, rather than the sense of being invulnerable to all disease.

    “Perfect” in the religious sense means as-intended-by-God, not does-what-we-might-prefer, after all.

    It’s still a stupid argument from the religious point of view, since the idea that God never intended us to use the intellects He gave us (again, from the assumptions of the religious point of view) to improve our lives is baseless.

  2. Beatdown says:

    Sikhs are not Muslims. Islam doesn’t require one to be armed at all times, but Sikhs are required to be armed at all times. I’m not Sikh, and have not even read the words of their guru, but their view that their religion requires them to always be armed is not a ex post facto justification of their wanting to carry a weapon.

    I agree with the larger thrust of your point, which is that religious observances shouldn’t be allowed to infringe on anyone else’s freedoms.

  3. Anne Haight says:

    Yeah for some reason my brain decided Sikhs were Muslim when I wrote that. I know they’re not. Derp.

  4. Merwin Haight Jr says:

    Home school !!!!!!!! If you don’t want to play by the common rules of public safety then keep you’re kids home!

  5. Thomas Jack says:

    I agree with the point you’re making. If you can’t abide by the rules of the country/corporation/community, then you should be excluded and asked to leave. It’s what we do with criminals, they commit a crime, aka break the rules, and we punish them, even if they committed the crime due the laws of their religion. If we followed the laws of religion, apart from the main ones such as Do not kill, Do not steal etc, the world would still be in the anarchy of the Middle Ages and still at the same technological level as well. I don’t think the idea that someone with disabilities should be excluded per say, sure, you can’t have someone with a disability doing a job which can not be fulfilled due to it, but it was hardly their decision to have the disability, unlike religion where it is one’s decision to believe in a set of beliefs, so should not be “punished” for it.

  6. Copenhague says:

    I think the idea is that the design is “perfect” in the sense that it’s what God intended, rather than the sense of being invulnerable to all disease.

    “Perfect” in the religious sense means as-intended-by-God, not does-what-we-might-prefer, after all.

    It’s still a stupid argument from the religious point of view, since the idea that God never intended us to use the intellects He gave us (again, from the assumptions of the religious point of view) to improve our lives is baseless.

Leave a Reply