Religious Exemption

Panacea Financial Contract Review
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
mquinif said:
To the requirement for covid vaccination to take oral boards
Click to expand...
I thought they said there will be no exceptions.

Sincere question. What religion is anti-vax? I've never understood the religious exemption for vaccines because I've never actually heard of a specific religion that is against them.
 
Last edited:
I have a sincerely held religious belief against oral exams. If God wanted us to take oral exams, he wouldn’t have given us Prometric testing centers. Also what if my examiner is a woman? How can I be in a hotel room with an unmarried woman? Or even worse, a married woman? God forbids it! Has anyone gotten a religious exemption for the oral exam?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
UscGhost said:
What nonsense is this?
Click to expand...


Like all religious nonsense, it is sincerely held fervent nonsense. Kids are not the only ones who like to play make believe.

If someone suggested, “Let’s dress up in medieval costumes, perform an elaborate ritual with a creepy soundtrack, pretend this dry tasteless wafer is the body of Christ, and let’s eat it! It’ll be dope AF!!”

A sensible person would reply, “Are you on crack?”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are a handful of Christian sects that take exception to the use of fetal cell lines in the development of some vaccines. They instruct their followers that the use of such derived vaccines is against their beliefs (not all vaccines). There are a few such groups in my catchment area, so I've had to deal with them in the ICU.

I still don't understand why the ABA would make such a mandate, as is redundant (every hospital already has them, and we work in hospitals). But, hey, people like to make dramatic gestures to show they care or are doing something.
 
psychbender said:
There are a handful of Christian sects that take exception to the use of fetal cell lines in the development of some vaccines. They instruct their followers that the use of such derived vaccines is against their beliefs (not all vaccines). There are a few such groups in my catchment area, so I've had to deal with them in the ICU.
Click to expand...
Somebody posted a list a while back of drugs of a similar ilk - tylenol, ibuprofen etc.
 
Arch Guillotti said:
Somebody posted a list a while back of drugs of a similar ilk - tylenol, ibuprofen etc.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know. Internal consistency is not a strength, and I'm sure if shown a list of drugs that have the same issue, they'd create some reason why vaccines are different.
 
Our hospital has a few docs and APPs and more than a few RNs who declined the vaccinations. All that they had to do was check a box on the form saying that they had a religious objection. That's it. No further explanation or inquiry required. I suspect that many of the objections were of a secular or political nature. But who am I or anyone to question anyone else's faith based declarations.
 
gunnershow said:
Are vaccine mandates really serving a purpose anymore? The vaccines are against a different strain and don't have the same efficacy. In fact, the booster data is laughably bad, it's simply not an intervention worth getting for most people. Time to move on.
Click to expand...
Yes.

The vaccines still work exceedingly well at keeping you from becoming seriously ill

It's just that the 4th dose doesn't provide much additional benefit above the protection provided by the first three doses.
 
gunnershow said:
Are vaccine mandates really serving a purpose anymore? The vaccines are against a different strain and don't have the same efficacy. In fact, the booster data is laughably bad, it's simply not an intervention worth getting for most people. Time to move on.
Click to expand...
They are an incredibly accurate predictor for how misinformed and selfish the individual is. I don't want anyone with a '**** everyone but me' attitude who gets their medical information from Infowars working with me or on my patients so yes, it is still a useful tool. I would argue we've never had a better one at finding these closet grifters in the medical field.
 
gunnershow said:
Are vaccine mandates really serving a purpose anymore? The vaccines are against a different strain and don't have the same efficacy. In fact, the booster data is laughably bad, it's simply not an intervention worth getting for most people. Time to move on.
Click to expand...
Vaccination is still excellent at reducing the chance of death or severe injury for the person receiving the vaccine. However, it really does not seem to affect spread, so mandates really don't make a lot of sense, aside from the argument of protecting your workforce from death or prolonged absence. With how newer stains are getting easier to spread, but far less lethal (we've had a grand total of 2 Covid pts in our ICU total in the last two months, down from >30 every day from October through January), they make even less sense.
 
psychbender said:
Vaccination is still excellent at reducing the chance of death or severe injury for the person receiving the vaccine. However, it really does not seem to affect spread, so mandates really don't make a lot of sense, aside from the argument of protecting your workforce from death or prolonged absence. With how newer stains are getting easier to spread, but far less lethal (we've had a grand total of 2 Covid pts in our ICU total in the last two months, down from >30 every day from October through January), they make even less sense.
Click to expand...
That's assuming that the only reason for a mandate is to prevent spread.

Preventing spread is great if possible since then it reduces morbidity and mortality, consumption of limited healthcare resources, etc.

But since there isn't an effective way to substantially reduce spread, then the next preferred outcome is the reduction of morbidity in those that are infected. The best way to do that is to vaccinate everyone, then you don't have to worry about spread as much.

Sounds like the mandate is working as intended given the high rates of spread but lower morbidity.
 
Serious question: How difficult is it to start a religion? Basically, I just want to be able to buy real estate and not pay taxes. I’m also thinking I can throw in a few sweet exemptions. Anyone have experience starting a religion? Should I keep the theology simple or should I go full on crazy sci-fi fantasy?
 
GravelRider said:
Serious question: How difficult is it to start a religion? Basically, I just want to be able to buy real estate and not pay taxes. I’m also thinking I can throw in a few sweet exemptions. Anyone have experience starting a religion? Should I keep the theology simple or should I go full on crazy sci-fi fantasy?
Click to expand...

The Bible is public domain AFAIK. You can just Ctrl C + Ctrl V it, and then modify it to align with your religion's financial goals.
 
UscGhost said:
That's assuming that the only reason for a mandate is to prevent spread.

Preventing spread is great if possible since then it reduces morbidity and mortality, consumption of limited healthcare resources, etc.

But since there isn't an effective way to substantially reduce spread, then the next preferred outcome is the reduction of morbidity in those that are infected. The best way to do that is to vaccinate everyone, then you don't have to worry about spread as much.

Sounds like the mandate is working as intended given the high rates of spread but lower morbidity.
Click to expand...
Your line of thought is incorrect. You are attributing decreased morbidity and mortality to increased vaccination due to mandate. Instead, it is more likely that the observed decrease in morbidity and mortality is due to mutations in the virus that make it less deadly but more transmissable (which is something that is well documented). I live in an area with low vaccination rate, yet right now very low morbidity or mortality from Covid. As i said, we went from having 30+ Covid patients in the ICUs every day to just two total in the past few months. This reduction cannot in any way be attributed to mandated vaccination, since these patients are still not getting vaccinated. I sincerely hope that some of these people come around to the idea before a future mutation renders the disease more lethal again (and that we have a better defense than using the original vaccine over and over again).
 
GravelRider said:
Serious question: How difficult is it to start a religion? Basically, I just want to be able to buy real estate and not pay taxes. I’m also thinking I can throw in a few sweet exemptions. Anyone have experience starting a religion? Should I keep the theology simple or should I go full on crazy sci-fi fantasy?
Click to expand...
 
psychbender said:
Your line of thought is incorrect. You are attributing decreased morbidity and mortality to increased vaccination due to mandate. Instead, it is more likely that the observed decrease in morbidity and mortality is due to mutations in the virus that make it less deadly but more transmissable (which is something that is well documented). I live in an area with low vaccination rate, yet right now very low morbidity or mortality from Covid. As i said, we went from having 30+ Covid patients in the ICUs every day to just two total in the past few months. This reduction cannot in any way be attributed to mandated vaccination, since these patients are still not getting vaccinated. I sincerely hope that some of these people come around to the idea before a future mutation renders the disease more lethal again (and that we have a better defense than using the original vaccine over and over again).
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Hospitalization rates still higher in the unvaccinated population during omicron.

jamanetwork.com

Risk of Infection and Hospitalization Among Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children After the Emergence of Omicron

This database study examines vaccination for COVID-19 among children in New York after the emergence of the Omicron variant, including analysis of case rates and hospitalizations for COVID-19 disease.
jamanetwork.com jamanetwork.com

Yes omicron is less deadly than delta. Yes vaccination still confers benefits that far out weigh the risks regardless of the strain.

The main downside to mandates is the social outrage from the minority who don't like the big bad man to tell them what to do
 
UscGhost said:
Wrong.

Hospitalization rates still higher in the unvaccinated population during omicron.

jamanetwork.com

Risk of Infection and Hospitalization Among Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children After the Emergence of Omicron

This database study examines vaccination for COVID-19 among children in New York after the emergence of the Omicron variant, including analysis of case rates and hospitalizations for COVID-19 disease.
jamanetwork.com jamanetwork.com

Yes omicron is less deadly than delta. Yes vaccination still confers benefits that far out weigh the risks regardless of the strain.

The main downside to mandates is the social outrage from the minority who don't like the big bad man to tell them what to do
Click to expand...
What? You article does not address the discussion. It actually supports what I said, that vaccination still prevents serious illness and death for the recipient, as it always has. We both agree on that.

You stated that transmission was down because the vaccine mandates worked. I countered that transmission rates are similar in high and low vaccinated areas, suggesting that vaccination did not affect spread, but still confers individual protection.

If you're interested in getting any of this remaining unvaccinated to become vaccinated, you're not going to change anyone's mind with bad arguments and personal attacks.
 
psychbender said:
What? You article does not address the discussion. It actually supports what I said, that vaccination still prevents serious illness and death for the recipient, as it always has. We both agree on that.

You stated that transmission was down because the vaccine mandates worked. I countered that transmission rates are similar in high and low vaccinated areas, suggesting that vaccination did not affect spread, but still confers individual protection.

If you're interested in getting any of this remaining unvaccinated to become vaccinated, you're not going to change anyone's mind with bad arguments and personal attacks.
Click to expand...
At this point nothing we do will change anyone's mind.
 
psychbender said:
What? You article does not address the discussion. It actually supports what I said, that vaccination still prevents serious illness and death for the recipient, as it always has. We both agree on that.

You stated that transmission was down because the vaccine mandates worked. I countered that transmission rates are similar in high and low vaccinated areas, suggesting that vaccination did not affect spread, but still confers individual protection.

If you're interested in getting any of this remaining unvaccinated to become vaccinated, you're not going to change anyone's mind with bad arguments and personal attacks.
Click to expand...
Huh?

For one, I didn't say that transmission was down due to mandates..as reducing transmission is not the primary goal of this vaccine anymore. From a medical perspective, we primarily care that the vaccine keeps you from getting seriously ill (which is does, and which my article supported). If the vaccine is so effective that it reduces spread as well, perfect, but that isn't as it important.

You said "Your line of thought is incorrect. You are attributing decreased morbidity and mortality to increased vaccination due to mandate"

The articles directly refutes your assertion that my line of thought is incorrect


Secondly, how did I make a personal attack?

Thirdly, the vaccine mandate accomplished exactly what it was intended to do, and that is to further increase vaccination rates and encourage those who were hesitant to get it. You have the subset of people who didn't get it at first, but ended up getting it because they wanted to keep their jobs, etc.

You are just trying to argue that we don't need a vaccine mandate anymore because this variant doesn't kill enough people....until the next variant pops up?
 
UscGhost said:
Huh?

For one, I didn't say that transmission was down due to mandates..as reducing transmission is not the primary goal of this vaccine anymore. From a medical perspective, we primarily care that the vaccine keeps you from getting seriously ill (which is does, and which my article supported). If the vaccine is so effective that it reduces spread as well, perfect, but that isn't as it important.

You said "Your line of thought is incorrect. You are attributing decreased morbidity and mortality to increased vaccination due to mandate"

The articles directly refutes your assertion that my line of thought is incorrect


Secondly, how did I make a personal attack?

Thirdly, the vaccine mandate accomplished exactly what it was intended to do, and that is to further increase vaccination rates and encourage those who were hesitant to get it. You have the subset of people who didn't get it at first, but ended up getting it because they wanted to keep their jobs, etc.

You are just trying to argue that we don't need a vaccine mandate anymore because this variant doesn't kill enough people....until the next variant pops up?
Click to expand...
The personal attack part was not directed at me, but by your flippant comment about people not wanting big bad man to tell then what to do. That's a very simplistic and derogatory comment to make, and serves no purpose other than to prevent further discussion via strawmanning the other side.

I think we're talking part each other, so let's back up. Regarding our quibble over mandates, the express purpose of the mandates at the time they were being put in place (and continues to be promulgated by media and governmental outlets) was explicitly to reduce spread. There is absolutely no evidence of that actually working, thereby is a poor argument to be making. Mandates are only helpful given negative externalities whereby the actions of the individual have a direct effect upon others (as in the case of most other communicable diseases). A better argument (and one that we should be making, as you did earlier in this thread), would be reduction in Healthcare utilization, thus ensuring that when medical emergencies arise, people can actually obtain care. This may actually be helpful in convincing people to become vaccinated, because they will want to make sure they can have their emergency surgery when needed, rather than being told that every hospital in a six hour radius is full.

I am arguing that we need to have better arguments, that cannot be so easily refuted, if we're going to try to justify overriding individual autonomy, and convince or compel people to vaccinate, so that when the next, harmful strain emerges, we can have more buy-in.
 
I consider current vaccine hesitancy in someone about to take the orals in 2022 to be a big red flag because that means during alpha and delta when vaccination was meaningfuly reducing transmission that this dipsht was still refusing the shot.
 
psychbender said:
The personal attack part was not directed at me, but by your flippant comment about people not wanting big bad man to tell then what to do. That's a very simplistic and derogatory comment to make, and serves no purpose other than to prevent further discussion via strawmanning the other side.

I think we're talking part each other, so let's back up. Regarding our quibble over mandates, the express purpose of the mandates at the time they were being put in place (and continues to be promulgated by media and governmental outlets) was explicitly to reduce spread. There is absolutely no evidence of that actually working, thereby is a poor argument to be making. Mandates are only helpful given negative externalities whereby the actions of the individual have a direct effect upon others (as in the case of most other communicable diseases). A better argument (and one that we should be making, as you did earlier in this thread), would be reduction in Healthcare utilization, thus ensuring that when medical emergencies arise, people can actually obtain care. This may actually be helpful in convincing people to become vaccinated, because they will want to make sure they can have their emergency surgery when needed, rather than being told that every hospital in a six hour radius is full.

I am arguing that we need to have better arguments, that cannot be so easily refuted, if we're going to try to justify overriding individual autonomy, and convince or compel people to vaccinate, so that when the next, harmful strain emerges, we can have more buy-in.
Click to expand...
This argument was made ad nauseum regarding the lockdowns and people didn't listen to that either. I have come to the conclusion that there is a significant minority of people in this country that would gladly watch all of society and everyone who isn't in their immediate group burn down around them to avoid the slightest inconvenience to their meaningless daily routine.

I am assuming you don't work with outpatients in the sense that you ask them if they want to be vaccinated. Otherwise you wouldn't still hold this magical thinking level belief that we are just missing some crucial messaging or evidence piece to convince the unvaccinated to finally go ahead and do it. It is more rigidly fixed than a religious belief at this point, you would have better luck convincing the Pope that Jesus was an alien who tricked everyone then convincing someone to get vaccinated (at least in the USA).
 
psychbender said:
The personal attack part was not directed at me, but by your flippant comment about people not wanting big bad man to tell then what to do. That's a very simplistic and derogatory comment to make, and serves no purpose other than to prevent further discussion via strawmanning the other side.

I think we're talking part each other, so let's back up. Regarding our quibble over mandates, the express purpose of the mandates at the time they were being put in place (and continues to be promulgated by media and governmental outlets) was explicitly to reduce spread. There is absolutely no evidence of that actually working, thereby is a poor argument to be making. Mandates are only helpful given negative externalities whereby the actions of the individual have a direct effect upon others (as in the case of most other communicable diseases). A better argument (and one that we should be making, as you did earlier in this thread), would be reduction in Healthcare utilization, thus ensuring that when medical emergencies arise, people can actually obtain care. This may actually be helpful in convincing people to become vaccinated, because they will want to make sure they can have their emergency surgery when needed, rather than being told that every hospital in a six hour radius is full.

I am arguing that we need to have better arguments, that cannot be so easily refuted, if we're going to try to justify overriding individual autonomy, and convince or compel people to vaccinate, so that when the next, harmful strain emerges, we can have more buy-in.
Click to expand...
Except that when the vaccine mandate was initially put in place, it DID reduce spread from alpha and delta variants.

It just happened to be that the omicron variant escaped that protection.

It probably wouldn't matter what argument we make..the hesitant will remain hesitant.
 
chessknt said:
This argument was made ad nauseum regarding the lockdowns and people didn't listen to that either. I have come to the conclusion that there is a significant minority of people in this country that would gladly watch all of society and everyone who isn't in their immediate group burn down around them to avoid the slightest inconvenience to their meaningless daily routine.

I am assuming you don't work with outpatients in the sense that you ask them if they want to be vaccinated. Otherwise you wouldn't still hold this magical thinking level belief that we are just missing some crucial messaging or evidence piece to convince the unvaccinated to finally go ahead and do it. It is more rigidly fixed than a religious belief at this point, you would have better luck convincing the Pope that Jesus was an alien who tricked everyone then convincing someone to get vaccinated (at least in the USA).
Click to expand...
Endless family meetings in the ICU, ED, and wards have yielded some success. It's not easy, but some family members have finally been coming around, as of our last surges. My last Covid ICU death, I was able to get his wife and one adult child to agree to get vaccinated, as the watched him slowly die. Don't give up on them.
 
psychbender said:
Endless family meetings in the ICU, ED, and wards have yielded some success. It's not easy, but some family members have finally been coming around, as of our last surges. My last Covid ICU death, I was able to get his wife and one adult child to agree to get vaccinated, as the watched him slowly die. Don't give up on them.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if that sometimes works inpatient. Outpatient is a different beast.
 
psychbender said:
Endless family meetings in the ICU, ED, and wards have yielded some success. It's not easy, but some family members have finally been coming around, as of our last surges. My last Covid ICU death, I was able to get his wife and one adult child to agree to get vaccinated, as the watched him slowly die. Don't give up on them.
Click to expand...
Oh I gave up on them a year ago. I mention it in my clinic in a neutral manner, especially when seeing people with PASC and am universally turned down even after emphasizing data-supported benefits for symptoms they are actively seeing me for. I have far better success getting asymptomatic octagenarians to quit smoking.

On the inpatient side I was usually told to use whatever was in vogue that month for covid therapy and also told that they absolutely would not consent to anything with remdesivir or the vaccine in it. I saw a guy in an ltach who needed a referral for lung transplant after a very bad case of covid and he wouldn't get vaccinated (with the full support of his unvaccinated family). These people are proud of their ignorant stubbornness and I have no interest in engaging over it unless absolutely required.
 
Wow there's a lot of intolerance in this thread.

Just wanted to report back that the ABA does promptly approve religious exemptions to the covid vaccine requirement.
 
mquinif said:
Wow there's a lot of intolerance in this thread.

Just wanted to report back that the ABA does promptly approve religious exemptions to the covid vaccine requirement.
Click to expand...

in medicine overall you will find a lot of intolerance for stupidity and ignorance. That's just how it goes. Perhaps we should all lobby the ABA to stop caving in for people pretending to have religious objections. 99.9% of requests for religious exemption are by people who are members of a religion that encourages and supports them getting vaccinated.

At least we can rest assured there is probably a special place in hell reserved for people faking religious reasons to object. I can't quite remember which level of Dante's Inferno covered that one.
 
Last edited:
Mman said:
in medicine overall you will find a lot of intolerance for stupidity and ignorance. That's just how it goes. Perhaps we should all lobby the ABA to stop caving in for people pretending to have religious objections. 99.9% of requests for religious exemption are by people who are members of a religion that encourages and supports them getting vaccinated.

At least we can rest assured there is probably a special place in hell reserved for people faking religious reasons to object. I can't quite remember which level of Dante's Inferno covered that one.
Click to expand...
The irony is that the fake religious exemption probably doesn't believe in hell. There are always going to be a few slimy people who sneak through the holes in the system. It should be publicized who is on hospital staff and not vaccinated however so consumers can make informed decisions about their medical care. I know I would decline literally any form of care from an unvaccinated physician given the high predictive power for how uninformed that person must be.
 
chessknt said:
The irony is that the fake religious exemption probably doesn't believe in hell.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The ones I am aware of are going to church regularly (to a religion that supports them being vaccinated). They just claim some personal religious belief that is in opposition to their actual religion's stated position.

There is not a rash of atheists claiming religious objections.
 
nimbus said:
Like all religious nonsense, it is sincerely held fervent nonsense. Kids are not the only ones who like to play make believe.

If someone suggested, “Let’s dress up in medieval costumes, perform an elaborate ritual with a creepy soundtrack, pretend this dry tasteless wafer is the body of Christ, and let’s eat it! It’ll be dope AF!!”

A sensible person would reply, “Are you on crack?”
Click to expand...
And yet my hospital is forcing me to affirm (through mandated education) that calling a person with male genitalia and a beard 'she' and 'her' is completely rational and that men can give birth. Not a religious one in the bunch....weird...
 
Teillard said:
And yet my hospital is forcing me to affirm (through mandated education) that calling a person with male genitalia and a beard 'she' and 'her' is completely rational and that men can give birth. Not a religious one in the bunch....weird...
Click to expand...


It’s the difference between sex and gender. Gender is a social construct and is self defined. I have unintentionally misgendered people in the past. But I’m getting better.
 
nimbus said:
It’s the difference between sex and gender. Gender is a social construct and is self defined. I have unintentionally misgendered people in the past. But I’m getting better.
Click to expand...
I suspect a religious person could give a similarly deflecting defense of their 'nonsense', a big difference being that one kind of nonsense can be openly ridiculed without consequences and the other is institutionally enforced with serious consequences.
 
Teillard said:
I suspect a religious person could give a similarly deflecting defense of their 'nonsense', a big difference being that one kind of nonsense can be openly ridiculed without consequences and the other is institutionally enforced with serious consequences.
Click to expand...


We all win some and lose some🙂
 
mquinif said:
Wow there's a lot of intolerance in this thread.

Just wanted to report back that the ABA does promptly approve religious exemptions to the covid vaccine requirement.
Click to expand...
Yes, intolerance to selfish, ignorant people who are supposedly educated, ignoring evidence and putting other people’s lives at risk. There is, rightfully so, a lot of that on this thread. Disappointed in the ABA.
 
Teillard said:
And yet my hospital is forcing me to affirm (through mandated education) that calling a person with male genitalia and a beard 'she' and 'her' is completely rational and that men can give birth. Not a religious one in the bunch....weird...
Click to expand...

Teillard said:
I suspect a religious person could give a similarly deflecting defense of their 'nonsense', a big difference being that one kind of nonsense can be openly ridiculed without consequences and the other is institutionally enforced with serious consequences.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure they’re comparable. Nobody wakes up Christian (ie., it’s a “choice”), but plenty of people wake up heterosexual, homosexual, or transgender. People who say being transgender is mostly a choice are the same ones who thought homosexuality was a choice. The same ones arguing for early therapy for transgender kids (without providing the resources to get it) argued for conversion therapy for homosexuality.
 
Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Paradox of tolerance - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Guillemot said:
Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Paradox of tolerance - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

The concept of tolerance is absurd. I’ve always hated the term. I tolerate my commute, I tolerate going to the dentist. Other peoples life choices, as long as they don’t unreasonably infringe upon the rights of others, should be accepted and celebrated, not tolerated.
 
Beeftenderloin said:
The concept of tolerance is absurd. I’ve always hated the term. I tolerate my commute, I tolerate going to the dentist. Other peoples life choices, as long as they don’t unreasonably infringe upon the rights of others, should be accepted and celebrated, not tolerated.
Click to expand...


Anyway, my point was that individuals such as mquinif should not necessarily be tolerated "we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument"

I dont disagree with what you are saying though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top