Not really homeschooling in the news, but another good reason to homeschool! http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88232 Edited to add the article text: School interrogates, rejects parents' religion Subjects mom, dad to 'sincerity test' after filing vaccination exemption By Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily A mother and father in New York were subjected by their school district's attorney to a faith "sincerity test," which ultimately ruled their beliefs were too questionable to qualify for a religious exemption to mandatory student immunization. Ron and Rita Palma filed the exemption with their son's school district in 2006 after coming to the conclusion the year before that the required vaccinations violated their conscience and sense of God's leading for their family. Rather than accept the standard exemption form, however, the Bayport-Blue Point Union Free School District demanded the couple meet with school attorney David Cohen. The Palmas have twice been compelled to sit down with Cohen to be interrogated about their faith and their convictions about vaccines. "If you believe God is on your side," Cohen asked in the most recent of the two interviews, conducted last fall, "does that mean he's not on the side of someone who believes in immunization?" "Do you have conversations with God? Has God told you not to immunize?" the attorney asked. "Explain it to me." Cohen described to the Palmas' attorney that the purpose of the interview was two-fold: to determine whether the Palmas' beliefs are actually religious, as opposed to philosophical or political; and to determine whether the beliefs are "sincerely and genuinely held." The school district's most recent interrogation of the Palmas was videotaped, and a segment – which shows the attorney, Cohen, while the Palmas and their attorney sit off-screen – can be seen below: Rita Palma told WND that being compelled to defend her faith before an attorney and answer questions about her family's lifestyle, diet, medicinal choices and personal convictions was "unbelievably invasive." "It's almost beyond words what we were put through," Palma said. "It's such an abusive power, it's so arrogant that 'outrageous' doesn't even label it correctly. It's something you can't even imagine that somebody would take it upon themselves to do – to judge the sincerity of your belief. "Particularly in a school district," Palma said, "taking it upon themselves to judge your relationship with God? Have you ever heard of such a thing?" Not only were the Palmas grilled, however, their attempts to file religious exemptions were also ultimately denied. Following both interviews, the first in 2006 and the last in 2008, the school district deemed the Palmas' beliefs were not sincerely held. "This determination," wrote the school in 2006, "was made based upon your meeting with the school attorney and information which we received, which significantly calls into question your stated beliefs." Rita Palma explained to WND that her choice not to immunize her children was a decision of conscience and of following God's leading. In the interview with the lawyer, Palma further explained that she sees a distinction between medicine as a healing for sickness and vaccines, which she described as injecting a sickness as step toward heath. The latter, she insisted, violates her understanding of trust in God and his design for the body. The school district's denial, however, cited a medical test Palma gave her son as evidence that her beliefs are too inconsistent to be sincerely and genuinely held. The district's second denial, in 2008, further criticized the Palmas, a self-described Catholic family, for misquoting the Bible and claimed that if their objection was truly a matter of religious conviction, they could have sought something other than public school for their son. The Palmas appealed the original denial to the state's commissioner of public education, only to be denied again. Now, with the help of New York State Assemblyman Richard N. Gottfried, the Palmas are working to prevent other parents from enduring the same interrogation or contra-conscience mandatory immunization of their children. Gottfried, chair of the state Assembly's health committee, has sponsored New York bill A00883, which amends state law to ban "sincerity tests" and states, "The current common practice of government agencies scrutinizing and judging a parent's religious beliefs is inappropriate in a democracy that values the First Amendment. "There could be concern that some parents might falsely claim a religious exemption," the bill continues. "But it is greatly outweighed by the burden that the intrusive, prolonged inquiry imposes on bona fide objectors forced to defend their religious beliefs." WND contacted the offices of attorney David Cohen for response or comment but received no reply.
I can easily see one set of our friends in this situation. They don't immunize & claim it's for religious reasons to get past the school requiring it. I know it's simply because they don't believe in them for other reasons. If they were to be questioned they would probably fail.
This is such a touchy situation. Maybe they should have vaccination free public schools so that people who do not want to vaccinate thier children do not endanger others. I choose to vaccinate my children, and am seriously thinking of the guardisil for my daughter, but I think it should be her choice. However, I had an aunt who lost a child d/t ruebella (a neighbors child was born deaf) So for me it was not really an issue. That being said, there are some scary issues out there with vaccines... and if you say that widespread use of vaccines have saved more lives than they have damaged, then that IS true...but if it damages YOUR child, one might feel differently about it. It comes down to, I think, if we are going to allow for religious exemptions, then we may have to allow for conciencious objections...or say no exemptions and if you cannot in good faith allow your child to be vaccinated you must find other schooling options for them. The good of the many over the good of the few. it isn't fair....but there isn't a whole lot that is. On the otherhand, I shudder to think of a lawyer for the government being in a position to evaluate the level of anyones faith and beliefs. ugh
This is the editorial I wrote on the subject... Today, I was watching a video on YouTube regarding a New York school attorney grill Christian parents on their religious beliefs. I was amazed, astounded, shocked, and more than a little angry at the logical fallicies committed by David Cohen as he attempted to keep Ron and Rita Palmer off-balance while questioning the basic tenants of their faith. Although I do not agree with the religious reasons behind the parents choosing not to immunize their children, I do believe that it is their right first, to choose not to immunize their child and second, to not have their faith questioned. Let me elaborate on one of the questions the lawyer repeatedly asked. "If God gave man the wherewithall to create vaccinations which purpose is to combat disease, then why would using them represent a mistrust in God." He seemed to feel that this was a significant question, since he vehemently repeated it when he did not get an answer he approved of. The parents countered with the question, "How do you know God created vaccines?" Cohen disliked this answer, and seemed bent on having the Palmers prove where vaccinations came from. How, exactly, does one logically prove where something came from? Isn't that part of religion - faith? He asked, with disdain evident in his voice, if vaccines came from Satan. Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between. After all, God gave man the wherewithal to create machine guns and atomic bombs. Some may argue no good can come from these, and some may argue that some good can come from these. Who is to say whether God, Satan, or humans came up with the original idea in each case? Or the distortion of these ideas? The Palmer refused to cite an exact source for vaccinations, which is probably good, since Cohen seemed likely to ridicule or not accept whatever their final judgement might be. But the fact is, we will not know what the ultimate source is until we have passed on, and to try to claim that knowledge beforehand is ludicrous. But now that this is out of my system, let me get down to the two biggest problems with this interrogation. The first is the ongoing struggle of parents to be responsible for their children. This subject has been the gist of many articles, and I won't bog down with it again. Second, and more disturbing, was the challenge implicit in this statement by Cohen: "There are two issues here. One is whether the individual truly holds religious beliefs and number two, whether those beliefs are sincerely and genuinely held. You can espouse a religious belief…something nobody can question as a religious belief. Whether it's sincerely held or not is something that may be subject to a challenge, whether they are sincerely held. And you can espouse certain beliefs which by their very nature somebody can challenge as not being religious beliefs although you may hold them sincerely." Please go back and read that statement again. Yes, folks, the government has taken it upon itself to determine, first whether our beliefs are religious beliefs or moral beliefs and second, whether we are sincere in our religion and beliefs. Something that we as Christians are told that only God can know now can be determined by the government of the United States. Let me tell you, I knew our government was getting more powerful, but I never dreamed they would soon have power to rival the Almighty. So, the government can determine whether your beliefs are religious or intellectual. I'm glad they can sort that out, because frankly, since my religion is an integral part of my life, that means that all of my decisions are, to me, religious. How I discipline my kids - religious, because I pray about it and seek scriptural help. Whether or not we should go in debt to buy a car - religious, again because we seek guidance. And whether or not to vaccinate my kids - religious, because I carefully weighed the medical evidence using the intellect that God gave me and made a prayerful decision, based upon the fact that God has given me the responsibility to raise my children to the best of my ability. But it's not enough for the government to determine how our beliefs fall - the also will take the time to let us know if we are all falling short of Christ but striving to be better, or if we are in fact hypocrites. I can see it now - well, you're Mormon but you drink hot chocolate; doesn't that mean that you don't REALLY believe Joseph Smith was a prophet? Well, you're Baptist, but do you go to church EVERY Sunday, or just three times a month? We've been peeking into your window, Ms. Catholic, and we notice you don't say your prayers EVERY day. Sorry, we think you don't really have faith in God. God has given every person a brain to think intelligently, a heart to make moral decisions, the ability to go to Him in prayer and receive answers. He has given parents a responsibility as stewards for their children. To measure these quantitatively is like asking someone to measure how much love they have for their mother, how much fear they have of the dark. Not only is it an impossible task, it is also one that the government has no right to attempt.
Great thoughts!! It seems to me though that the only risk would be to those non vaccinated students, no?
That's not entirely true. If an unvaccinated child attends school after contracting a disease, but before knpwing they have it, many peole would be at risk. Any other unvaccinated children in the school would be risk. Plus, even children that have been vaccinated can get the germs. They can then take those germs home to their families. If there is a baby in the house who has not yet been vaccinated against that disease, that baby could get it, get very sick, maybe even die. That is why ps require vaccinations. It can be dangerous to all the students, their families, and anyone else they come in contact with if there is even one nonvaccinated student in the school.
But their parents knew the risks and chose not to vaccinate. If vaccinated children can get the germs - which I agree, they can - then they can get them from other children who have been vaccinated. Which is the whole point. If the vaccines don't work, then why should someone be forced to use a vaccine and then be at risk for contracting a disease still? The fact is, if a vaccinated child can get a disease than a vaccinated child can spread the disease. If the vaccines work - which they don't always do - then a vaccinated child shouldn't have to worry about catching something from an unvaccinated child. And if they don't work, then they are likely to catch it from a vaccinated child. In fact, since the disease has to start somewhere, they are likely to catch it from a child who was pumped full of the disease in the first place - that's called a vaccine.
You do realize that a vaccination doesnt eliminate the virus or disease right??? There will always be and has always been these virus & diseases. The vaccination is what protects the person but it doesnt eliminate the virus desease from existing. No one got measles during the outbreak last year that already had the vaccine. Only those who didnt got it and even that was not as many as the media would have you believe. It is totally inaccurate media propaganda that vaccinated children are endangered because of no-vax kids.
Actually these statements aren't entirely correct. A virus is basically a pack of genetic material and cannot reproduce without the cellular mechanisms of its host. Therefore if there are no hosts for it to infect it will cease to exist. For example, small pox is believed to only exist in the laboratory anymore. Of course, some viruses are pretty hardy and can exist in the environment for many years waiting to infect a host. However, eventually if there isn't a host, the virus will not have any way to reproduce. Vaccines do not confer 100% immunity. They rely instead on herd immunity. Basically if enough of the population is vaccinated, even if the vaccine is only 60-90% effective in preventing infection, the disease spread will be extremely limited and with time can be eliminated from the population. In decades past, it was easy for the culture to make the decision to vaccinate. The risk of serious communicable disease was very real and people witnessed how difficult these diseases were. The very small risk of vaccination was easy to accept in lieu of the larger risk of the diseases. As a result most people vaccinated and the diseases faded away into memory for most people. Now people see the real, if rare, risks of vaccination as being more of a danger since they do not often see the disease. Therefore more people decide not to vaccinate, the 'herd immunity' of the population decreases and we see a resurgence of the disease. In a particular outbreak, a vaccinated person may not have gotten the disease, but the potential is there since no vaccine confers 100% immunity. There are always some individuals who cannot vaccinate as well, immune suppressed, etc. Having good herd immunity, a large percentage of the population vaccinated, helps protect those individuals as well. There are some really good lesson plans out there for herd immunity, they would be worth googling and checking out. Now this is something of a over simplification. There are other effects of vaccinating that are still poorly understood. For example, whether the intense schedule may cause auto-immune issues in genetically susceptible individuals. However, there is quite a bit of evidence on the ability of wide spread vaccination eliminating disease. It is sort of a strange social contract where people accept the small risk of vaccination for the greater good. Now we are faced with the situation where many people question whether they should be exposed to any risk for the greater good. That is a question I can't answer! However, believing that your decision effects only you is denial of reality. I also believe that there are sound reasons to refuse certain, or even all vaccines for some individuals. I just don't think telling yourself that it doesn't effect anyone else is one of those sound reasons.
if a child is not vaccinated the run a higher risk of spreading a diesease. However a child who is vaccinated can still pass it to someone else with out showing any symptons. I vaccinate my child. My worry is that her 2nd cousins who are not vaccinated could get seriously ill because they have not had any exposure to these dieseases. The risk with vaccinations is that they work but they don't completely eleminate the diesease. As long as the diesease is out there it runs the risk of mutating. There are also some vaccines which haven't been on the market long enough to make me feel comfortable like above mentioned gardisil (however it will be at least another 10-12 years before my daughter is eligable for this shot) by then hopefully there will be more research done. My issue with this family in the OP is if they don't believe in vaccinations do they not believe in other types of medicines? If their child gets an ear infection do they treat with antibiotics? That is probably what the school had a problem with you either fully treat or not at all.
This may be the school's opinion however IMHO we should have the right to define our own religious beliefs as to what God might deem acceptable for us. This belief should be tailored for us by our creator not by some school board or other governing authority. Just because I take Tums for my heartburn doesn't mean that if I had cancer I should not have the right to refuse a therapy that includes the use of stem-cells from an aborted fetus. Surely this is an exaggeration however the point stands religion is personal and should be defined by oneself.
I remember this case. They claim their concerns are about children who are not vaccinated. However, they give parents an option to be exempt for religious reasons. If they were really concern about the health of other students, they would not exempt anyone. On the other hand, interrogating a family to find out if their beliefs and religion qualify as a true religion (in their bias opinion), is crossing the line. They scream "Separation of Church and State" when it come to teaching religion or praying in the schools, but they are fast to dictate whose religion is considered legit.
