News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I'll say it again. These Mennonites are never going to change their stance on vaccines. Most are stuck with beliefs dating back to the early 1700s. Hell the couple in question with the six year old who died speak a broken English + Early 18th Century Low Germanic language.
These people are beyond back woods. Asking them to change is about as likely as having the sun set in the East. Their daughter dying from a preventable disease isn't some lack of prevention, to them it was the will of God.
You might as well walk up to a seven year old and ask them to perform triple bypass surgery. These people are unable to understand a vaccine. They lack the quantifiable knowledge to even begin to comprehend a vaccine.
People might ask how many of their children must die before they vaccinate. The answer is 100% of them. Likely fully explaining vaccines and microbiology to them would likely be seen as human arrogation in God's will. They would rather be wiped from the face of the Earth than to believe they have some sort of say over God's will.
That is the kind of people we are talking about here. They will unquestionably follow the "laws" of their religion even if it means the painful death of everyone they love. You CAN NOT CHANGE these people. It is impossible.
Said it before, will say it again: While I am aware that it violates the dignity of those in question, I am strongly opposed to to the excemption of people from public health measures for religious reasons. I do not care if your god commands you to suffer. If your beliefs are standing in the way of protecting uninvolved members of society, it’s your beliefs that have to take a backseat, not other lives. No exceptions, no compromise. If they do not want minding the society they exist in, they can leave.
What law that allows persecution of these people won't be abused by fascists to apply to people they don't like? We all want laws where we throw people out of society we don't like, but there's a reason fascism needs democracy to exist. I'm obviously for some sort of solution, but preferably one that doesn't have all of the tools for fascism to use against their political enemies.
Slippery slope arguments help tackling issues at hand how exactly? ;)
This isn’t an issue that just spontaneously arose. This has been an issue ever since the implementation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
How do you suggest they "leave" society against their will? That's literally deportation—very abusable by fascists today. Unless you are suggesting they can voluntarily leave... which is a "solution" I guess. Who will be doing this? This would be a federal thing so you want to fund the DEA to make these arrests? Yeah blowing up the DEA budget won't help fascists either.
It's not a slippery slope if that's literally how this country has been working for as long as you or I have been alive. These laws require funding and budgets and law enforcement agencies to enforce these laws. This is literally drug enforcement, it's or course going to be the drug enforcement agency to do the presidents bidding. An executive branch agency mind you.
What are you on about? The law I mentioned specifically means that they are excempt from measures that would go against their religious convictions unless these convictions do not withstand ‘scrutiny’.
What I am saying is that if a group of people is posing a public health risk because of their religious convictions, they should be treated as a health hazard and for example be quarantined, even against their will - if they are unwilling to compromise on these convictions.