Dear Editor,

The argument that our nation was built upon complete freedom does not hold up when those very freedoms endanger the lives of innocent people. In response to the recently published column entitled, “NY law banning religious exemptions for vaccinations is a step in the right direction,” I would argue that electing not to receive vaccinations based on one’s religious beliefs should not happen when it puts other human lives at serious risk. Greater education on the necessity of vaccines must be accessible to all, and a more widespread discussion surrounding this issue needs to take place.

I believe that this debate is related to a larger issue that we have as a society: the rigid interpretation of founding principles. In America, for example, we have a habit of looking to our founders to justify the way we utilize our freedoms. Don’t get me wrong, I believe strongly in values and founding principles. But if these founding fathers were aware that over 200 years later absolute religious freedom would endanger the lives of innocent civilians, do we really think that they would still have afforded that doctrine without any special conditions?

I am a religious individual, and it pains me to advocate for compromising one’s personal beliefs. However, I challenge those who reject vaccinations to think critically: If you knew that one of your family members or best friends would contract a disease that would ultimately kill them because of your refusal to receive vaccination, would you still refuse?

Sincerely,

Ben Phelps

Master’s of Social Work Graduate Student

Syracuse University

Published on September 16, 2019 at 8:42 pm