Even the Catholic Church has given the A-OK for its adherents to take these vaccines. At this point, anyone you encounter citing a "religious" objection is more likely to be citing a personal preference.
Isn't religion supposed to be a deeply personal thing, not necessarily tied to some earthly institution or organization? What if I sincerely believe that complete and total bodily autonomy is a God-given right but I'm not a member of a church who shares my views, are my beliefs invalid?
> Isn't religion supposed to be a deeply personal thing, not necessarily tied to some earthly institution or organization?
You are asking the wrong guy, but I'd note that the person I was responding to mentioned sin. That implies some things about which religions he was including, and membership in those religions implies some other things about obedience to religious authority and so on. If you're in the clear with the Catholics and the Baptists when it comes to sinning, that covers a lot of ideological ground.
> What if I sincerely believe that complete and total bodily autonomy is a God-given right but I'm not a member of a church who shares my views, are my beliefs invalid?
As I implied in my other comment, I do think there's a distinction to be drawn between religion and personal preference. I don't have a really deep take on this, but I'd note that it wouldn't be the first time the law had to take these things into account. I do not know that much about this stuff, but I think being a member of a group (even the Scientologists!) helps if you want your beliefs recognized as religious beliefs. A problem prophets and mystics have had to contend with for quite some time, I imagine.
