ANY RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION MUST BE BASED ON
SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
California’s current religious exemption, established by Executive Order only, is far too
restrictive.
It states, "I am a member of a religion which prevents me from seeking medical
advice or treatment from authorized medical practitioners."
A more appropriate religious belief exemption would state I am opposed to one or
more vaccines due to my sincerely-held religious beliefs and as such, I am
claiming a religious exemption to one or more vaccinations.
Federal and state PRISONERS have the right to practice any religious belief
system while in prison.1
Any California religious exemption must not be more restrictive than that which is
conferred upon those in the penal system.
How can we treat parents who want to work with their doctor, to decide which
vaccines and when they should be administered to their children, worse than
those serving time in prison for the commission of any number of heinous
crimes.
Currently, under this religious exemption many people of faith instead use the personal
belief exemptions because, as written, the religious exemption is woefully inadequate
and does not describe the beliefs of most religions.
In many faith traditions, members are asked to prayerfully consider what God wants
them to do in their life, particularly with major decisions where there is some level of
controversy.
If a person utilizes that process, and desires an exemption from a particular vaccine in
relation to their faith practice, they should be granted that exemption.
There are tenets primary to the Vedic system which is an ancient oral and scriptural
lineage and the foundation for such religions as Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Advaita
Vedanta and Buddhism.
Ahimsa is the first tenet and is defined as the non-harming of self or others and is
commonly expressed as vegetarianism. Under this tenet, the consumption of flesh or
animal product is a sin and in orthodox cases should be avoided even if one’s life
depended on it.
In Judaism, kosher law prevents consumption of pig creating a moral dilemma
for orthodox followers of the faith when considering vaccines with pig cell
components.
Inclusion of aborted human fetal cells, monkey kidney cells, pig cells, dog and cow
cells as well as other toxic adjuvants in the vaccines are the sticking point for
religious objection.
The CDC lists the different components used in the manufacturing process and/or
present in each individual vaccine. These include the aborted fetal cell lines
WI-38 and MRC-5.
The vaccines in current use made from human fetal cell lines include varicella
(chickenpox), rubella, hepatitis A, rabies, shingles and the polio portion of pentacle
(combo of DTaP, Polio and HiB).
Furthermore, many world religions have dietary guidelines that prevent orthodox
observers from consuming or injecting products into themselves that contain animal
products or are otherwise considered impure.
A true religious belief exemption that can be exercised by those of faith must be at least
as permissive as that granted to federal prisoners.
The current religious exemption is so restrictive that even those strictly following
Christian Science would be unable to claim it as their faith allows for seeking of
medical care in the case of broken bones.
1 June 2005 In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of a federal law
requiring prisons to accommodate the religious practices and beliefs of inmates. In a case brought by a witch and a
Satanist, the Court agreed that inmates in an Ohio state prison had been unconstitutionally denied their First
Amendment rights to practice religion, and to access religious literature and ceremonial items.
In the Supreme Court's unanimous decision upholding the law, Justice Ginsberg disagreed with the lower court,
writing: "It [the law in question] confers no privileged status on any particular religious sect, and singles out no bona
fide faith for disadvantageous treatment.
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act requires prisons receiving federal funding to
accommodate prisoners' diverse religious practices and beliefs.
Columbia Human Rights Law Review 8th Edition 2009
While in prison, you have the right to observe and practice the religion of your choice. The United States
Constitution as well as federal and state laws protect this right.
1. Constitutional Protections
The First Amendment to the Constitution provides the most basic protection of your right to religious freedom. This
Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.”2 The first part of the Amendment, known as the Establishment Clause, prohibits government
officials from establishing a religion. Generally, this means that the government is not allowed to start a church, to
aid one religion, to aid all religions, or to favor one religion over another.3 The second part of the First Amendment,
known as the Free Exercise Clause, determines when and how much the government can restrict your religious
practices. Under the Free Exercise Clause, prison officials can only impose restrictions on your exercise of religion
“reasonably related” to legitimate prison goals.4 In other words, if you are barred from performing a religious
practice, the justification must reasonably relate to the prison’s aims. These goals may include preventing crime,
rehabilitating prisoners, and ensuring security.5 Both the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause are part of
the First Amendment.
1. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S. Ct. 1079, 1082–83, 31 L. Ed.2d 263, 268 (1972) (prisoners retain 1st
Amendment protections, including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion).
2. U.S. Const. amend. I. 3. See Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15, 67 S. Ct. 504, 511, 91 L. Ed. 711, 723
(1947) (“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the 1st Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the
Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
one religion over another.”). 4. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 2261, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64, 79 (1987)
(“[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably
related to legitimate penological interests.”). 5. Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822–23, 94 S. Ct. 2800, 2804, 41 L.
Ed. 2d 495, 501–02 (1974); Procunier v.Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 412, 94 S. Ct. 1800, 1810–11, 40 L. Ed. 2d 224,
239 (1974).
6. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to cc-5. (2006).