The abstract section of his argument explained that a measles outbreak in the earlier part of 2015 prompted discussion of stricter vaccination laws. Within this discussion, there have been people who are against mandatory vaccination laws due to their religious and or ethical beliefs. In response, authority figures have argued to change California vaccination laws so that Americans cannot be exempt from having the vaccine because of simple ethical beliefs. They wish to require that citizens may only be exempt from taking the vaccine due to legitimate religious beliefs (Lobo 261). Specifically, "'genuine and sincere' religious beliefs" (Lobo 261). However, this makes me question: who decides what is a 'genuine' religious belief within someone else' religion? To me, the only person who has the right to say if a belief is genuine enough is the person who believes it in the first
The abstract section of his argument explained that a measles outbreak in the earlier part of 2015 prompted discussion of stricter vaccination laws. Within this discussion, there have been people who are against mandatory vaccination laws due to their religious and or ethical beliefs. In response, authority figures have argued to change California vaccination laws so that Americans cannot be exempt from having the vaccine because of simple ethical beliefs. They wish to require that citizens may only be exempt from taking the vaccine due to legitimate religious beliefs (Lobo 261). Specifically, "'genuine and sincere' religious beliefs" (Lobo 261). However, this makes me question: who decides what is a 'genuine' religious belief within someone else' religion? To me, the only person who has the right to say if a belief is genuine enough is the person who believes it in the first