And I also say unto you, that I am way less worried about what the Lord thinks of me, than someone who advocates exposing young children with developing nervous systems to psychotropic drugs should be.
For I say unto you, It would be better for you to have a millstone tied to your neck and be throne into the ocean, than to advocate harming a child. Which is what smoking pot in the same room with a kid is advocacy for.
But not tobacco, because it's legal, right? Actually, tobacco would almost certainly be more harmful.
And I'm not a Cathoholic, so I wouldn't know about your nun anecdote.
But hey, let's not stop there. Regarding child abuse, I'm sure that many of your left-wing ilk would say the same about a McDonald's happy meal.
By the way, all of my kids have been vaccinated, and I would advocate the same for anybody else's.
But I wouldn't for a moment consider coercing or criminalizing any parent who conscientiously chose not to do so.
Indeed, your own hysterical, wild-eyed, slavering authoritarian attitude very effectively exemplifies why it is the height of folly to delegate such parental decisions to an overbearing nanny-state.
To my mind, one thing much more dangerous than parental ignorance is submitting to the dictates of smug, self-assured disciples of science and statistics; demagogues who know what's best not only for themselves, but for everybody else as well, and can (apparently) only make their point by talking down to people in the most abusive manner.
As C.S. Lewis noted, the Tyranny of such zealots is relentless. I'm sure it's been quoted in this thread already, but it bears repeating:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”