Apparently
Christian Scientists are the only exception, leading to speculation that anti-vaccine parents in Australia may attempt to join that church under false pretenses.
Christian Science Australia spokeswoman Kay Stroud told Fairfax Media that the church was in fact "very neutral on the subject of vaccination" and did not make a suggestion to followers either way.
Ms Stroud also said the church would be able to determine if people were joining it simply to get out of vaccinating their children.
"We're not silly," she said...
Christian Science is based on the Bible and explained in writings by 19th century US founder Mary Baker Eddy. Among other things, it believes there is a link between prayer and health - as well as other issues such as global issues and employment.
The religion states it is up to each Christian Science follower to "choose" what health care they want. But many "decide to pray first about every challenge ... and find it effective".
It is not Scientology.
Seems odd then that they are given the sole exception despite the issue not being directly related to any religious practices. Any religious exemptions is the State favoring some religions over others, so there should be zero exemptions to any law.
While I agree that this would be an appropriate principle to apply from an ethical point of view, I feel that I should point out that this attitude is extremely rare amongst governments.
Almost all governments worldwide have no concept of separation of church and state, and religious exemptions and exceptions are endemic. They should not surprise anybody.
I am not surprised by it, I am just saying that exemptions violate the very core of the principle of a secular state, because they inherently constitute religious discrimination and favoritism. Those countries, like the USA, that claim that religious discrimination is not acceptable are violating their own principle by having exceptions.
If there is any questions whether something is important enough for the public interests to warrant restricting religious practice, then it should be a law at all.
BTW, fines and fees are really just a form of "force" and punishment. Ultimately, they cannot be enforced unless backed by a credible threat of physical force (incarceration).
BTW This attitude is illogical and stupid, and despite being popular with the extreme right wing (particularly in the USA), is not recognised as in any way factual by anyone else.
It is an undeniable objective fact of reality. A fine is just a threat of physical force used to coerce payment. People are given no choice but to pay the fine and no choice means being forced. Their sole option to be forcibly put in jail against their will. Show, me a single fine in the law where this is not the case. No one would pay fines if it wasn't.
It amuses me that, having just derided religious exemptions from the law, you immediately point out an irrational belief that you seem to think applies universally to the enforcement of laws.
What is amusing is that a suppossed adult has never given an ounce of rational thought to the inherent foundation of all formal "laws" and what it is that makes any person ever pay a fee or fine.
If fines and fees are 'force', then so are all human interactions; and 'force' is rendered meaningless.
Bullshit. You and I are interacting right now, and we can both freely choose to interact or stop whenever we want without either of us suffering loss of freedom over our bodily movements and actions. That is true of most human interactions. Fines and fees are not paid by free choice, only under threat of punishments that ultimately entail physical bodily force. They are equivalent to a bully who demands your lunch money under physical threat, and if you don't give it, he sits on you and drools on your face until you do. Sure, most smart kids pay up before the physical force happens, but that force is the only reason they do. According to you, such kids have not been forced to give up their lunch money.
Suggestions are not force.
Fees are not suggestions, they are "or else" demands. By definition, suggestions are not "en
forced", unlike laws that require fees and fines. How are they enforced? By threat of physical force where a person is bodily constrained against their will to remain in a location with their movements and actions forcibly limited. If fines were "suggestions" then just like "suggested donations" one could and most would choose not to pay them without any consequences.
Being told to eat your greens if you want dessert is not force.
Being told that you won't get a hand out unless you do something to qualify for it is not force.
And neither of those share any similarity with fines and fees. Those are exchanges and one is free to engage in them or not. The consequence is merely not getting some reward that you would prefer to have. With fines and fees, you are not allowed to choose not to pay, because if you do then even more is taken from you up to and including your bodily freedom. You are physically forced to do things and be places you do not want to, if you don't pay (ie., lack of choice).
The only fines that are not rooted in force are those where payment is completely voluntary, and refusal to pay cannot possibly result in any arrest, or jail, or any consequence where you lose willful control over what happens to your bodily person.
