Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

federalregister.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 108 posts

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#71

Post by Boxxed »

Ancapistani wrote: post #41
vineyardmike wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it’s not. We’ve had mandated vaccines forever and no one cared until it became political during covid. People made it political and people are avoiding vaccines for politic. blaming it protecting freedoms i stead harming public health for politics is a less morally corrupt stance to take.

> We’ve had mandated vaccines forever That’s news to me.

My state requires about a half dozen vaccines (polio, HepB, MMR, ...) to attend any public school from K to college. For some reason there's some sort of collective amnesia about this and people are acting like this is the first time there's been a vaccine requirement.

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#72

Post by merlincorey »

joshuamorton wrote: post #65
merlincorey wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In other words, the only vaccine side effects possible after a month or so are a strict subset of covid side effects. I'm curious how you reconcile that statement with the various reports of women having way too much menstruation or way too little for several months after their shots. In a recent article about a study from Boston University[0], the researcher believes that under six months after vaccination would a…

Cynically, the thing you quote shows no evidence of vaccines actually having any effect and the study author wants more funding. Less cynically, infections can throw your body's homeostasis totally out of whack over long periods of time. I've had lingering side effects that lasted nearly a year before I was totally back to normal. It absolutely would not surprise me, at all, if covid screws with some people's menstru…

> All that to say, you've provided an unsubstantiated hypothesis. More than likely, it isn't true.

To be clear, my hypothesis is that scientists look for short term side effects on the scale of 6 months rather than the 1 month you stated it would not be possible to have them after.

> But even if it is, it doesn't contradict my initial statement. Because I didn't say there could be no long term side effects, I said that those side effects would be a strict subset of covid side effects.

I'm not arguing with you over whether or not there could be long term side effects; I am arguing with you over the definition of long term.

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#73

Post by antihipocrat »

dragonwriter wrote: post #56
antihipocrat wrote: post #6

If anyone can offer a reason as to why this system is beneficial to public health, safety or security, I'd love to hear it. I can only see a detriment to each if this law was put into effect.

> If anyone can offer a reason as to why this system is beneficial to public health, safety or security Because without it, the PSA can't know which of its employees do and do not have approved exemption requests. > I can only see a detriment to each if this law was put into effect. It's not a law, it's an internal employer data system for tracking workforce (employer, contractor volunteer, etc.) exemption requests u…

You are absolutely correct and I was mistaken, it's not a law.

I believe my point still holds as it's more concerned about the system being implemented. You could substitute the word 'law' with 'system', and my meaning and intent is completely unchanged.

Regarding the record keeping argument as being a benefit. I agree there is some value there if there was no existing record to keep track of numbers of exemptions.

Without having more information about the current recording system I'm not able to say whether there is a need to distinguish the types of exemptions being offered, and why religious exemption needed to be focussed on in particular.

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#74

Post by woodruffw »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #66
woodruffw wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no such thing as a legitimate or illegitimate religious belief, assuming there is separation of church and state. I don't understand the conjunction you're creating between these. The separation of church and state protects the state's independence and autonomy from the church, not vice versa. The state is under no particular obligation to protect or enshrine as religious any ridiculous thing you can dream…

> The state is under no particular obligation to protect or enshrine as religious any ridiculous thing you can dream up. Exactly, which is why being Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/lotsofpulp’s personal beliefs cannot be a criteria for not abiding by a government mandate. If someone else gets an exemption from government mandate because of their beliefs, then so should I, regardless of how old that belief is.

To be clear: I individually lean heavily towards the "nobody gets a religious exemption" side of things.

But no, I don't think there's a reasonable normative connection there. The federal government has (historically) largely delegated vaccination policies and their enforcement to the states, which in turn largely recognize their own right to perform "legitimacy" or "good faith" tests for religious exemptions.

The rules for those tests vary widely by state, but among the more common ones are (1) evidence that the individual's views are shared by their broader faith and not a product of individual exegesis, (2) evidence that the individual's request is long-standing (i.e., not merely a product of political winds), and (3) evidence that the individual doesn't belong to a religion expressly for the purpose of acquiring an exemption. None of that seems particularly unreasonable on face value to me, nor is it threatened by or threatening to the US's otherwise extremely strong religious protections.

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#75

Post by lotsofpulp »

arcticbull wrote: post #43
lotsofpulp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that relevant? Not murdering people is a societal mandate.

Not murdering people by spreading disease is a societal mandate too, in my opinion. People who spread deadly STDs like AIDS can be held liable for attempted murder. It seems we've already decided as a society that knowingly spreading deadly disease is a kind of violence. It doesn't extend here to the same degree because it's obviously much less deadly (and so much is circulating, proving who gave it to you is all but…

I am confused what you are referring to. I am talking about how people should forced to vaccinate (unless medical exemption) or not forced at all to vaccinate. Letting “religious” people off the hook is nonsensical and contrary to the principles of separation of church and state.

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#76

Post by lotsofpulp »

woodruffw wrote: post #74
lotsofpulp wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The state is under no particular obligation to protect or enshrine as religious any ridiculous thing you can dream up. Exactly, which is why being Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/lotsofpulp’s personal beliefs cannot be a criteria for not abiding by a government mandate. If someone else gets an exemption from government mandate because of their beliefs, then so should I, regardless of how old that belief is.

To be clear: I individually lean heavily towards the "nobody gets a religious exemption" side of things. But no, I don't think there's a reasonable normative connection there. The federal government has (historically) largely delegated vaccination policies and their enforcement to the states, which in turn largely recognize their own right to perform "legitimacy" or "good faith" tests for religious exemptions. The ru…

Everything in your last paragraph is unreasonable to me. None of those reasons is any business of the government.

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#77

Post by joshuamorton »

merlincorey wrote: post #72
joshuamorton wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cynically, the thing you quote shows no evidence of vaccines actually having any effect and the study author wants more funding. Less cynically, infections can throw your body's homeostasis totally out of whack over long periods of time. I've had lingering side effects that lasted nearly a year before I was totally back to normal. It absolutely would not surprise me, at all, if covid screws with some people's menstru…

> All that to say, you've provided an unsubstantiated hypothesis. More than likely, it isn't true. To be clear, my hypothesis is that scientists look for short term side effects on the scale of 6 months rather than the 1 month you stated it would not be possible to have them after. > But even if it is, it doesn't contradict my initial statement. Because I didn't say there could be no long term side effects, I said th…

See my edit. You're trying to use the definition of long term side effect to show that we need long term studies before we can deem things safe. But that doesn't follow. If the prevalence of some potentially chronic condition is low enough after a month to be safe, that it might be even safer doesn't really matter.

Right like to recap but remove the word "long term" entirely, you said that there might be issues that develop after years without warning. I said that no that's not possible, stuff can't develop suddenly after even just a month or so, because the mechanisms don't exist. You then cited an example of something that developed in under a month or two as a counterexample. When I put it that way, it's clear that it isn't actually a counterexample.

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#78

Post by merlincorey »

joshuamorton wrote: post #77
merlincorey wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All that to say, you've provided an unsubstantiated hypothesis. More than likely, it isn't true. To be clear, my hypothesis is that scientists look for short term side effects on the scale of 6 months rather than the 1 month you stated it would not be possible to have them after. > But even if it is, it doesn't contradict my initial statement. Because I didn't say there could be no long term side effects, I said th…

See my edit. You're trying to use the definition of long term side effect to show that we need long term studies before we can deem things safe. But that doesn't follow. If the prevalence of some potentially chronic condition is low enough after a month to be safe, that it might be even safer doesn't really matter. Right like to recap but remove the word "long term" entirely, you said that there might be issues that…

> You're trying to use the definition of long term side effect to show that we need long term studies before we can deem things safe.

This is not my position and I have made no such statements.

You are unfortunately projecting an argument onto me.

> But that doesn't follow.

Quite!

> you said that there might be issues that develop after years without warning

I absolutely did not -- maybe you have me mistaken with someone else you are currently discussing with.

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#79

Post by antihipocrat »

arcticbull wrote: post #38
antihipocrat wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we assume that there is benefit in this specific case, the utility of this law extends well beyond vaccine mandates. It may sound great, until a government comes into power with very different world views to your own, and suddenly you're on a similar list.

Sure, I agree, and when we have a bad list we can have that conversation. Tools can be used for good or bad, and that alone shouldn't preclude the use of the tool. I'm not sure the existence of a good list makes a future bad list any more - or any less - likely.

The classic argument is that by the time the 'bad' list is implemented, it's already too late.

The prevailing mentality up until recent times has been to prevent any list being created in the first place, as this guaranteed protection against abuse.

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#80

Post by axpy906 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #63
axpy906 wrote: post #40

I agree. I don’t see how a government keeping a religious registry of its citizens is going to lead to anything good.

> I don’t see how a government keeping a religious registry of its citizens is going to lead to anything good. This isn't a religious registry of US citizens, it's a workplace mandate exemption registry of the workforce of a particular government office.

That will most likely include their religion…
Post reply on HN