The plaintiffs lawsuit did not address natural immunity. So the matter at hand is being handled under the Religious Freedom Reform Act of 1993. COVID commander is arguing that mandatory vaccination is a violation of his 1st amendment right to freely pursue his religion. The government is arguing that he cannot refuse a lawful order.
Ironically the Religious Freedom Reform Act was submitted by Schumer. The Dems are getting screwed by their own legislation.
I agree that law arguments are compartmentalized, and for good reason. Courts would never close for sleep-breaks otherwise.
However, is it religious freedom to allow the belief that one is immune to the Chy-na virus, so do not need a vax? What if natural immunity is based on scientific fact? You then have a strange overlap of beliefs: God will protect us. Natural immunity is a manifestation from God. Immunologists just use different nomenclature to describe the same phenomenon.
Are you then arguably a stupid brain-washed religious nut, or are you standing up for your religious beliefs, that happen to coincide with scientific data?
At which point do science and religion depart? Religion is often portrayed as anti-science. It is my contention that there is available evidence that the belief systems regarding the 'science' overlap. Certainly, the argument from authority i.e. take the vax, because the army says so, and science, falls by the way-side, because science no longer backs it.
In any case, the court-case is one that juxtaposes centralised power i.e. the will of the armed forces hierarchy, against the will of de-centralised power, i.e. those individuals who recognise that there is a distribution of belief systems. Their reaction is to accomodate those who would otherwise be oppressed. So the freedom of choice and human rights arguments would take a neutral stance on the science and a positive one on ethics.
My point is that we are fighting in a murky soup of ideologies. It doesn't matter what you believe, or what research you have done. It only matters that you do what you are told, which is of course, totalitarian in its standardised, cookie-cutter, everyone-is-the same approach.
It is no longer a scientific argument, not that legal eagles have any clue about the science. It is still a first amendment argument though: one has the right to one's own opinion. Also Natural immunity exists. Do we need to argue why?
The plaintiffs lawsuit did not address natural immunity. So the matter at hand is being handled under the Religious Freedom Reform Act of 1993. COVID commander is arguing that mandatory vaccination is a violation of his 1st amendment right to freely pursue his religion. The government is arguing that he cannot refuse a lawful order.
Ironically the Religious Freedom Reform Act was submitted by Schumer. The Dems are getting screwed by their own legislation.
I agree that law arguments are compartmentalized, and for good reason. Courts would never close for sleep-breaks otherwise.
However, is it religious freedom to allow the belief that one is immune to the Chy-na virus, so do not need a vax? What if natural immunity is based on scientific fact? You then have a strange overlap of beliefs: God will protect us. Natural immunity is a manifestation from God. Immunologists just use different nomenclature to describe the same phenomenon.
Are you then arguably a stupid brain-washed religious nut, or are you standing up for your religious beliefs, that happen to coincide with scientific data?
At which point do science and religion depart? Religion is often portrayed as anti-science. It is my contention that there is available evidence that the belief systems regarding the 'science' overlap. Certainly, the argument from authority i.e. take the vax, because the army says so, and science, falls by the way-side, because science no longer backs it.
In any case, the court-case is one that juxtaposes centralised power i.e. the will of the armed forces hierarchy, against the will of de-centralised power, i.e. those individuals who recognise that there is a distribution of belief systems. Their reaction is to accomodate those who would otherwise be oppressed. So the freedom of choice and human rights arguments would take a neutral stance on the science and a positive one on ethics.
My point is that we are fighting in a murky soup of ideologies. It doesn't matter what you believe, or what research you have done. It only matters that you do what you are told, which is of course, totalitarian in its standardised, cookie-cutter, everyone-is-the same approach.
It is no longer a scientific argument, not that legal eagles have any clue about the science. It is still a first amendment argument though: one has the right to one's own opinion. Also Natural immunity exists. Do we need to argue why?