Federal Court Denies Religious Exemption from Vaccination Requirement

Here’s a case that really illustrates the problem with granting religious exemptions — and only religious exemptions — from generally applicable laws. A federal court has denied a request for an exemption from a vaccination requirement because the grounds were merely “moral,” not “religious.”

The case is Watkins-El v. Department of Education, a New York case. The plaintiff asked for a religious exemption from school vaccination requirements for his children, claiming to be a Moor and an “Islamist.” But both the NY Department of Education and the federal judge determined that there was no “genuine and sincere religious impetus” behind the request. The court said, in part:

Although plaintiff asserts that his religion is “Islamism” and that he is a Moor, he does not claim that the tenets of Islamism or Moorish culture prohibit vaccinations…. Instead, Plaintiff bases his opposition on the assertion that these vaccines contain “monkey cells, pork derivatives, and aborted human fetuses,” which Plaintiff’s religion dictates he cannot consume…. Plaintiff’s opposition to these substances may be genuine and sincere, but he has not demonstrated that it stems from a religious, rather than simply moral, belief.

And here we see how religious exemptions are discriminatory in two different ways. First, they discriminate against newer religions or with novel interpretations of an older religion, of which there are virtually limitless variety. Why do we think that judges are competent, or even have the constitutional authority, to determine what is and is not an authentic Muslim belief, or Christian one, or any other? The varieties of belief within any sizable religion is enormous. But when considering such cases, judges will almost automatically favor forms of those religions that are viewed as more orthodox and dismiss claims of minority adherents. The inevitable result is religious discrimination.

Second, they discriminate against the non-religious in obvious ways. It gives (some) religious adherents an almost automatic get-out-of-the-law free card while explicitly denying such exemptions from anyone whose objections are “simply moral.” But why should religious beliefs be granted special privilege above moral beliefs?

No, all of this should be done away. There should be no vaccination exemptions that are not based on genuine medical reasons. And there should be no privilege given to religious belief that allows them to refuse to comply with the laws everyone else must comply with. All this does is sets up two sets of laws, one for the religious and one for everyone else. That is absolute anathema to the concept of equal protection under the law.

You can read the full ruling here.