Whether you see a difference between personal philosophy and established religion or not doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution does. That means that any governmental policies can ignore personal philosophy, but can’t ignore practices of established religions.
But we have already shown you that this isnt true
Does the constitution use the word “established”?
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.
Requiring vaccinations for attendance at public schools is allowed because there are reasonable legal alternatives to public schools available. If a state required vaccinations without religious exemptions AND required all children to attend public schools that would violate the 1st amendment.
That does not state that I cannot come up with a religion right now
So you’re sayng kick someone out of the country if they dont comply? And there is no issue with that?
Think of it as an extension of the laws requiring persons with mental health issues to take their medication. If anything the public good argument is more compelling for vaccination. A person suffering a psychotic break is only dangerous to a few people at a time, normally. A person spreading measles is potentially dangerous to thousands of people not even in the area through secondary infections.
You don’t have to kick them out. Just confine them till the vaccinations have been administered.
And people from a so called established religion are exempt? Where in the constitution does it say I cannot make up my own anti vax religion? So you lock people in their homes other than if they are exempt due to some shady, but established religion and you think this is even remotely possibly to happen?
But people with an established religion exemption are magically not dangerous?
It doesn’t really say that only established religions matter.
Courts pretty consistently held that as long as beliefs are religious in nature and sincerely held it isn’t their place to determine determine if they are right or wrong. Even the sincerely held part they seem to leave a lot of leeway.
I can’t imagine courts allowing anything that says only members of a religious organization are allowed to hold those religious beliefs and the first amendment protection that goes with it.
And two areas where this routinely comes up are:
Do you have a religious objecting to killing as a soldier?
Do you have a religious objection to taking an oath?
In the first case, you have to demonstrate a sincerely held belief. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to get alternative draft service to say, “I am a Quaker”.
In the second, you are simply asked to choose between “swearing” or “affirming” prior to testifying in court or similar.
No. Just legally exempt.
Ever hear any jokes about Christian Scientists with appendicitis? They’re morbid. 
yeah, I think you’re wrong. I highly HIGHLY doubt it will play out the way you’re saying. Do you have an example where it even has? We pointed out where it hasn’t, in school.
I also don’t envision them even attempting to pull this for it to be tested out.
you have a right to your religion, but you do not have a right to kill people with it.
I did a little more reading and probably misremembered the established religion part earlier. Conflating the establishment clause and the right to practice clause.
I did remember that the determination of what constitutes a religious belief is a very murky legal subject. They can actually be overridden when compelling public interest is at stake. But the bar is extremely high for that. Much easier just to include the religious exemptions rather than invite a court battle that will draw an injunction until such time as the SCOTUS hears the case. (Because this would go to the SCOTUS.)
One of the issues with not including an exemption would be that the number of religious exemptions would certainly fall short of compromising herd immunity. So the demonstrable harm to the public would be low. While the demonstrable harm on an individual’s religious rights would be high.
what they need to do is convince people that they want this vaccine. i thought they are being somewhat successful at it. if people want the vaccine, you don’t have to force them to get it. the few who opt out therefore shouldn’t harm everyone else.
Yeah, there’s not going to be a legal mandate to immunized for covid. There might be a mandate to be immunized to go to school, or to work in a hospital. There’s not going to be a uniform mandate on everyone. This is not going to go to court.
yeah, and working in an nursing home should also require that you get vaccinated, but that should be true regardless of your religious beliefs and possibly will be.
Any employer (outside the government) is free to require the vaccinations as a condition of employment.
Government employees have some extra protections. But the need for medical and elder care workers is clear and I would expect the courts to support a requirement for them.
has it been pointed out yet that the vaccine hasn’t been shown to protect others, only yourself? so if you get the vaccine, you still can get covid, but it’s likely to be too minor to notice, but you can still give it to others. therefore, seems silly to require people to get the vaccine if that’s true.