kengr

The way *I* see it is that you have to accept a religions premises as they apply to its adherents. They just don't get to insist that non-adherents follow those premises.

That's pretty much the basics of freedom of religion and of basic respect for other's beliefs.

So for example you can't insist that Jews or Muslims eat pork or Hindu's eat beef, just because it'd make life simpler for the folks running a public agency.

So, if a faith has some principles that pretty much say you are going to hell for some sorts of medical treatment, that's not something you can force on them in good conscience.

At the same time, with vaccinations, the unvaccinated *can* present a risk to others. Thus my solution that would keep them more spread out (hopefully enough to be harmless) in most cases, and let them put up with each other as a (mostly) separate risk pool.

There are some precedents,. Prohibition didn't apply to communion wine. Nor do the drug laws apply to sacramental peyote and the like.

Letting the government force people to violate religious rules is a precedent you need to be *very* careful about applying.

Also, forcing medical treatment on people has a bad history as well.

We do need to bend over backwards on some of this. But at the same time, we *can* take steps to reduce the danger to the rest of us.